Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKERin the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

DUNFERMLINE AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS EXTENSIONS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Dunfermline and District Tramways,"presented by Sir JOHN GILMOUR, and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

PORTS (TREATY RIGHTS).

Mr. LOOKER: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what instructions have been given to His Majesty's Minister at Peking with regard to the use of force to ensure that the treaty rights of Great Britain are respected or that British ships shall have free access to Chinese ports?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): As was pointed out in reply given by the Prime Minister to the Leader of the Opposition on 16th March, the instructions sent to His Majesty's Minister at Peking were that armed force should only be used in the last resort, for safeguarding the security of foreigners.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY.

Mr. LOOKER: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the gravity of the situation in China, and of the probability of the collapse of trade and industry, both Chinese and British,
unless outside help is afforded; and if he will consult the other Powers interested with a view to joint steps being taken to prevent such a result?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware of the grave situation in China. There are, however, some elements in the position as, for instance, last year's record returns of trade published by the Chinese Maritime Customs, which show that the position of trade and industry in China is not quite so disastrous as indicated in the question. The co-operation of the interested Powers who are taking part in the Tariff Conference at Peking will, it is hoped, effect a further improvement.

Mr. LOOKER: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the record Customs returns by no means reflect the conditions in the interior of the country?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know what they reflect.

RAILWAYS.

Mr. LOOKER: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has approached the other Powers who were signatories to the Washington Agreement with a view to making joint proposals to the Chinese Government for safeguarding the interests and ensuring the preservation of the Chinese railways upon which, owing to military interference, all commercial traffic has practically ceased, while the rolling stock is fast disappearing and no repairs can be carried out to the permanent way; and, if not, will he consult the other Powers interested with a view to joint action being taken without loss of time?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The deterioration of the Chinese railways is due to civil war conditions. Joint action by the Powers to stop the civil war would involve a reversion of their agreed policy of non-intervention in China's domestic affairs, and would entail the use of armed force. It is not the intention of His Majesty's Government to advocate any such proposal.

Mr. TREVELYAN: Can the Powers do anything to prevent their nationals supplying the various sides with munitions?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: There are Regulations about the importation of arms by sea, and I think our Regulations are enforced pretty strictly against our own nationals. I do not think there are any Regulations that effect a check on the importation of arms by land.

Mr. DALTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that recent visitors to China report that there is a great importation of arms from America, France and Italy by sea, and will he inquire into this matter?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: They are not oar nationals, at any rate.

Mr. DALTON: No, Sir; but in view of the question relating to the interested Powers, could the right hon. Gentleman not make representations?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not feel inclined to take very active steps in this matter unless they can be applied to all frontiers, land as well as sea.

BRITISH LEGATION, PRAGUE.

Colonel DAY: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is intended to purchase a house. in Prague for the Legation; and if he will indicate which is the House selected?

Captain HACKING (for the FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS): I have been asked to reply. A house has just been purchased, for use as a Legation at Prague, the name of which is the Thun Palace.

Colonel DAY: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say what price has been paid for the house at Prague?

Captain HACKING: The purchase has not yet been completed, and I would rather not say anything now on the subject of the price.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Has it not been extremely difficult to find a house for the British Legation in Prague.

Captain HACKING: That is perfectly true. We have had many difficulties to face, and what we have now got is a very large building.

Oral Answers to Questions — TURKEY.

BRITISH DIPLOMATIC ESTABLISHMENTS.

Mr. DALTON: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the total estimated cost for 1926–27 of the British diplomatic establishment in Turkey; how many official residences, including summer residences, are being maintained; what is the total number of personnel employed; and how many of these are British subjects?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The total estimated cost for 1926–27 of the salaries and allowances of the British diplomatic establishment in Turkey is £24,943. One official residence is maintained at Constantinople and one house is rented at Angora. On the site of the old summer residence at Therapia, which was burnt down in 1912, and has not been rebuilt, there is a cottage owned by His Majesty's Government. The total number of personnel, including one officer at Angora, is 18, all of whom are British subjects.

ENGLISH HIGH SCHOOL FOR GIRLS, CONSTANTINOPLE.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make any further statement with regard to the English high school for girls at Constantinople?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Shortly after the date of the reply which was given to the Noble Lord the Member for Shrewsbury (Viscount Sandon) on this subject on 17th March, a satisfactory compromise appeared to have been reached with the Turkish Government, as a part of which it wars agreed that the prosecution against the head mistress of the school should be dropped. Unfortunately, notwithstanding this agreement, the Turkish authorities proceeded with the prosecution, and the matter has formed the subject of further strong representations by His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Constantinople. It is reported in this morning's Press that the head mistress has been acquitted, but I have as yet no official confirmation.

PASSPORTS (PARTY TICKETS).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his Department will do all in its power to-make mutual arrangements with whatever countries on the Continent- may be
possible to extend the facilities given to travellers holding a special week-end ticket, without passport, to travellers in groups on what are known as party tickets; and whether he is aware that these tickets are issued under conditions which provide far greater safety against their abuse than the week-end tickets, and would greatly simplify such visits abroad?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Hacking): I have been asked to reply. The question of extending "no passport"facilities to persons travelling on party tickets has been carefully considered from time to time, but I am advised that the difficulties involved are such as to make this concession undesirable.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell the House any of these difficulties? It would be a tremendous boon to a large number of people who desire to visit the Continent, and could it not be made as easy as weekend tickets?

Captain HACKING: There are 20,000 people who take advantage of these facilities, but they are not all British subjects. They have all to return to this country, and if we allow them to return without passports, we shall be adding very materially to the difficulties of administering the Aliens Act.

SLAVE TRAFFIC (RED SEA).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give an estimate of the extent of the slave trade across the Red Sea; and whether he now has any information as to how the slaves brought from the inland country of Abyssinia reach the coast without passing through territory under the control of European Powers, and which is this territory or territories?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir: I am informed that African slaves in Arabia fall into two categories, namely, those who were sold into slavery in the Hejaz as children by their parents or relations whom they had accompanied on the pilgrimage. The other category consists of slaves taken from Abyssinia, and pre-
sumably smuggled through remote and unoccupied portions of Eritrea and French Somaliland to the Red Sea.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are we making representations to the Italian and French Governments to stop this traffic through their territories; and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great many of these slaves are reported as going through Djiboutil?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; I am making no representations on the subject. It does hot seem to me a proper thing for me to assume that the French or Italian authorities are neglectful of their duties.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statement issued by the First Lord accompanying the Navy Estimates draws attention to this traffic, and to the fact that we have to maintain warships there; and as Abyssinia is in that country would not the best way to stop this traffic he to act as I proposed?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I do not think that it is my business to make representations to every other Government on their business. If the slaves get through, they go through remote and unoccupied territory, and I can well understand that it is impossible for the authorities wholly to check the traffic, but I am sure that they do all they can.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: Is this not a matter for the League of Nations to take up, and could not the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the League?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Of course the League is concerned in the matter, but I do not think that it is my business to make any particular representations on the subject at this stage.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman still consider that he has any influence with the League of Nations?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope so, if the hon. Gentleman will believe me.

RHINELAND (EVACUATION).

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in
view of the declaration of the League of Nations' Commissions that Germany has faithfully fulfilled her Treaty obligations and in view of the obligations of Article 431 of the Treaty of Versailles, if he can state the attitude of the British Government towards the evacuation of the Rhineland?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension of the facts. The First Committee of the recent Assembly of the League made no such declaration. They confined themselves to expressing the opinion that in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 1 of the Covenant, Germany is now giving effective guarantees of her sincere intention to observe her international obligations.

Mr. SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of my question?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The second pert of the question proceeds on the hypothesis in the first part, and as that hypothesis was unfounded, the second part does not arise.

BRITISH COAL (SALE IN SPAIN).

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement with regard to the representations made to Madrid respecting the new decree organising the sale and use of coal in that country, the result of which has been to limit the exportation of British coal into Spain?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Government have protested strongly against the provisions of the decree, and are at present awaiting the reply of the Spanish Government who ha re promised to give the matter their closest attention.

Mr. PALING: Can the Foreign Secretary say whether this decree means that there is a lessening sale of coal from Great Britain and an increase from other countries?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No. I do not think it can mean that.

HUNGARIAN FORGERIES.

Mr. J. HUDSON: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether at or prior to the recent meetings of the Council and of the Assembly of the League of Nations any views were exchanged on the question of the Hungarian forgeries practised against French banks; and what was the attitude of the British representatives?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I returned to the hon. Member for Brightside on 24th February last. The matter was not discussed at the recent meetings of the Council and Assembly of the League of Nations.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

HOUSING, DEVONPORT.

Colonel DAY: 15.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty to state what action is being taken or contemplated to provide housing accommodation at Devonport for the established men and families transferred to that dockyard from Rosyth and Pembroke?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson): I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of the 22nd March to the bon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha)—[OFFICIAL REPORT, columns 872–3]—and to the statements made by my right hon. Friend the First Lord during the course of the recent Debate on the Report of Navy Estimates —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd March, columns 940–41 and column 966].

Colonel DAY: Could the hon. Gentleman say how many men it is proposed to transfer from Pembroke and Rosyth?

Mr. DAVIDSON: Between 450 and 500.

DOCKYARD EMPLOYÉS (PENSIONS).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 16.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the total amounts of reductions made from the wages of established men are in excess or deficiency of the sum required to pay their pensions and other charges which are made from the superannuation fund?

Mr. DAVIDSON: The amounts of the difference between the pay of established and hired workmen, to which it is assumed that the hon. Member refers, are
materially less than the provision which would be required to meet the superannuation charges in respect of the established men.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 17.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the restriction now placed in the way of a man's establishment in His Majesty's dockyards and of the low pension payable to established men, the Admiralty will consider allowing established men to count their full hired time for pension?

Mr. DAVIDSON: The question of what service should count for pension under the Superannuation Acts is one for the Treasury, and I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the 27th February, 1925 — [OFFICIAL REPORT, Column 2334.]

PENSIONS (APPEALS).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 18.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether in view of the fact that an average of over 1,300 men are invalided out each year from His Majesty's Navy, and that, in the event of their claiming that their disability has been contracted on service, their only right to appeal is to the Admiralty, which is entirely guided in its decisions by its own medical staff, he can see his way to establish some independent tribunal such as that which exists for the benefit of War pensioners at which the men may be represented and their cases verbally argued?

Mr. DAVIDSON: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Sir B. Falle) on the 8th February—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Column 632]—and can only add that the matter is still under consideration.

MARRIED OFFICERS (PASSAGES ABROAD).

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 19.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether in view of the disadvantages suffered by married officers in the Navy, he will grant passages to the wives and families of naval officers serving abroad at the same cheap rates as those granted to the families of Army officers?

Mr. DAVIDSON: The Regulations already provide for the grant of assistance from public funds towards the cost of the passages of wives and children of officers appointed for a term of years for service on shore abroad, but the conditions of Naval Service preclude the Admiralty from extending this concession to the cases of officers serving afloat.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is great dissatisfaction in the Navy, owing to the fact that married naval officers are on a less favourable footing than married Army officers, and will he not consider some concession of this sort, in order to remove this dissatisfaction and for the good of the Service?

Mr. DAVIDSON: I am aware of the situation described by my hon. and gallant Friend, but, in view of the decision of the Government, I am afraid that nothing can be done at present.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the First Lord stated in the recent Debate that he was going to look into the matter of the withholding of marriage allowances?

Mr. DAVIDSON: Yes, I know, and I understand that my right hon. Friend is looking into it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not still the policy of the Admiralty to discourage the marriage of naval officers?

Mr. DAVIDSON: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my right hon. Friend's declaration.

OFFICERS (ADMIRALTY EMPLOYMENT).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 20.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there is any rule or Regulation governing the period of employment of officers below flag rank at the Admiralty; whether any such officers now serving at the Admiralty, and not on the retired or emergency lists, have been there for more than three years since the end of the War; and, if so, how many of such officers are now at the Admiralty?

Mr. DAVIDSON: As the reply is somewhat long, I will, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The only definite rule or Regulation on the subject is that laid down in Article 243 of the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions to the effect that no executive officer will be allowed to hold an appointment or appointments that may be defined by the Admiralty to be "shore employment"for more than five consecutive years, or, in the case of members of the Board of Admiralty, for more than seven consecutive years, except in special circumstances which may, in the opinion of the Admiralty, justify an extension of the appointment in particular cases. Appointments at the Admiralty are generally, however, either for two or three years.

The number of active list officers below flag or equivalent rank now serving at the Admiralty who have been at the Admiralty for a continuous period of more than three years is 27. It is not possible, without considerable expenditure of time and labour, to examine the records of all officers now at the Admiralty, to ascertain whether they have been at the Admiralty at different times since the end of the War amounting in the aggregate to more than three years, but the number, apart from the 27 already referred to, is likely to be very small.

The 27 officers belong to the following branches:

8 executive,
2 engineering,
3 medical,
1 dental,
2 accountant,
2 instructor, and
9 Royal Marines.

The eight executive consist of one commander and three lieutenant-commanders who have passed the zone of promotion, and four lieutenants promoted from warrant rank.

PROMOTION (SEA-TIME QUALIFYING PERIOD).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 21.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the rules governing the qualifying period of sea-time for promotions have been modified since before the War; and, if so, to what extent and for what reason?

Mr. DAVIDSON: As the reply is a long one, I will, with the hon. and gallant
Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not want the whole answer, but I asked about a very simple matter, namely, whether the rules have been modified?

Mr. DAVIDSON: Yes, they have been modified, and the modification is given fully in the answer.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Might I ask a simple question? What is the reason for this modification? Is it any lack of ships at sea?

Mr. DAVIDSON: It is the general conditions now prevailing.

Following is the reply:

The following changes in the qualifying periods of sea-time for promotion of officers have been made since before the War:

Rear-Admiral.

Before the War, the first two years of the service necessary to qualify for advancement to Flag rank had to be in command of a ship-of-war at sea. This was cancelled in 1922, in view of the administrative difficulties in arranging for a captain's first appointment to be, as far as possible, to a sea-going command. The qualification requiring three years' total service in command of a ship-of-war at sea before promotion, however, remains

Engineer Captain.

Before the War, one of the qualifications for promotion to engineer captain was two years in a sea-going ship as engineer-commander or engineer-lieutenant-commander (or engineer-lieutenant senior list) in charge of engines. Since the War it has been laid down that one of the two years must be in the rank of engineer-commander, since otherwise the last sea service might have been rendered some considerable time ago and in a less responsible capacity.

Engineer-Lieut.-Commander (or Lieut., Senior List).

Now promoted after eight years' seniority.

Before the War, one of the qualifications for promotion to Engineer-Lieutenant (Senior List) was service as watchkeeper for not less than three years as Engineer-Lieutenant or Engineer-Sub-Lieutenant on board sea-going ships.

This change was made in order to bring engineer officers into line with executive officers as regards promotion to Lieutenant-Commander's rank.

Surgeon-Commander or Fleet-Surgeon.

Pre-War, three years at sea.

Now, two years at sea.

Surgeon-Lieut.-Commander or Staff-Surgeon.

Pre-War, three years at sea.

Now, two years at sea.

These changes were made in consequence of the administrative difficulties in arranging for the larger amount of sea service with the reduced periods for which officers now serve in the rank of Surgeon-Lieutenant and Surgeon-Lieutenant-Commander (normally six years instead of eight in each case).

Commissioned Officers from Warrant Rank.

No sea service laid down before the War.

Now, five years at sea as warrant officer, unless the conditions in a particular branch render such a period of service impossible.

A period of service at sea is thought desirable both as being of value professionally and as ensuring that each warrant officer does his share of sea time.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

OUT-WORKERS.

Mr. HAYDAY: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour to what sections of out-workers or home-workers the Unemployment Act is being applied?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): The Unemployment Insurance Acts apply to out-workers or home-workers only where it is established that a contract of service exists.

Mr. HAYDAY: 28 and 29.
asked the Minister of Labour (1) the number of out-workers or home-workers in their respective trades who were totally unemployed or in part-time employment for the last week in 1925 and in 1924 respectively;
(2) the number of out-workers or home-workers there are employed in the lace, boot and shoe, garment, glove, or
other trades for which there may be records for December 1925 and December 1924?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I regret that statistics of out-workers or home-workers are not available, either as regards numbers employed or cumbers unemployed. If the hon. Member will consult with me at my office, I shall be glad to go into the matter with him.

BENEFIT DISALLOWED.

Colonel DAY: 31.
asked the Minister of Labour the reasons why Mrs. R. Price, 72, Aldred Road, S.E.17, Book No. Borough 144,840, was refused unemployment insurance benefit on the 26th March without being afforded an opportunity of appearing before the rota sub-committee, especially in view of the fact that, although she was told by the manageress of the Exchange that she would have to accept employment as a waitress, she was afterwards, on the 22nd March, informed by the order clerk at the said Exchange that no vacancies existed for such employment?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am having inquiries made, and will let the hon. Member know the result as soon as possible.

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: 30.
asked the Minister of Labour why the unemployment benefit of J. Hindley, of Glazebury, was stopped; by what authority and on whose instructions the clerk of the Exchange has visited this man's home; and whether the fact that he kept some poultry was a factor in the disqualification for further benefit?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am having inquiries made, and will let the hon. Member know the result as soon as possible.

CONTRIBUTIONS (REFUNDS).

Mr. LOUGHER: 33.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that hardship is caused in certain cases owing to the Regulation under which refunds of unemployment insurance contributions paid in error cannot be obtained for more than three years back; and whether he is prepared to amend this Regulation?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have had my attention called to this matter. There must obviously be some limit to the
period for which such refunds may be claimed. The justice of the case would,
I think, be fully met if refunds could be claimed over a maximum of six years prior to the date of claim, and I am making a Regulation to this effect, which will be laid before Parliament shortly. It will be open to those concerned to renew claims rejected under the old Regulation.

EXTENDED BENEFIT (WAR PENSIONS).

Mr. ROSE: 34.
asked the Minister of Labour if, in view of the hardship to ex-service pensioners involved in the issue and operation of Circular 82/22, which authorises rota committees to take into account the amount of war pensions when considering claims for extended benefit, and of the public representations which have been made to him, he will reconsider the matter, with a view to its withdrawal?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The decision embodied in the Circular referred to is the result of careful and sympathetic consideration, and in my opinion adequately meets the situation. I do not think it causes any hardship.

Mr. ROSE: Are we to understand that this callous outrage is to be assisted in by the Ministry of Labour.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member must not take me as at all agreeing with the description that it is a callous outrage; it is quite the contrary. What has happened has been that there has been a concession. The former practice, I understand, was that the pension of any member of the family was taken into account, but now only the pension of the person himself is taken into account, and those of other members of the family are excluded. Therefore, so far from its being a callous outrage, it has been an attempt to meet that situation more sympathetically, and I think that, in the circumstances, it is a fair result.

Mr. ROSE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the pensions of relatives have been taken into account by rota committees, and is he not; conscious that the counting-in of pensions as against unemployment benefit is fundamentally a wrong and an injustice anyhow, seeing that a man who has a pension has earned it?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I understand that the practice was based on principles which existed long before my time, and that, under the regulations based on previous principles, the practice—not on any instructions from me—was to take into account every member of the family. My attention was called to that, and I though that on the whole it was not a proper thing to do, but that it would be fair, in regard to a particular person, to take into account what pension he himself might be obtaining, but that it would not be fair, in a case like that, to take into account the pensions of other members of the family. I issued a regulation, therefore, asking that rota committees should disregard pensions drawn by other members of the family.

Mr. ROSE: Owing to the unsatisfactory character of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, I beg to give notice that on the first available opportunity I shall raise this question on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

JUVENILE CENTRES.

Mr. R. MORRISON (for Mr. SCURR): 23.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the unreliability of the live register as an indication of the extent of juvenile employment, he will see his way to defer his intended reduction of the grants to local education authorities in respect of their expenditure on the provision of juvenile employment centres?

Sir A. STEEL-MA1TLAND: The test adopted is the percentage of insured juveniles unemployed. This is, I think, sufficiently reliable for the purpose required, namely, that of comparing one area with another.

Mr. MORRISON (for Mr. SCURR): 24.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the statements regarding the increase of crime amongst juveniles due to the effects of unemployment made by the Governors of Cardiff, Durham, and Hull Prisons contained in the Report of the Prison Commissioners; and whether, in view of these statements, he will postpone beyond 1st April, 1926, the operation of the proposed reduction of grants to local education authorities in respect of their expenditure on juvenile unemployment centres?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am aware of the statements to which the hon. Member refers. I have endeavoured, in the scheme which comes into force on 1st April, to provide that no reduction in grant will be made in those areas in which the incidence of unemployment amongst juveniles is severe.

Mr. LANSBURY: Would the right hon. Gentleman say why they cut down the grant to the East End of London, where the percentage of unemployment is very heavy?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: We have taken into account the degree of unemployment. I think that the official figures are a correct reflection by which we can judge, and we have attempted to frame our course of action accordingly.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a voluntary investigation made by people at Toynbee Hall reveals that over 600 of these lads and young men are out of work and have nowhere to go, and that the right hon. Gentleman is shutting up the institutions that were open to them?

PAPER-MAKING INDUSTRY.

Mr. HARRIS: 25.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed persons in the paper-making industry for the most recent convenient date; and the comparable figures for the two previous years?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The number of persons in Great Britain classified as belonging to the paper-making industry (including wall paper making and staining), recorded as unemployed at 22nd February 1926 was 2,936 (or 5.0 per cent.) as compared with 4,432 (or 7.4 per cent.) at 23rd February, 1925, and with 5,692 (or 9.3 per cent.) at. 25th February, 1924.

Mr. HARRIS: Do these improved figures account for the dropping of the Paper Duties?

WEEKLY RETURN (BOYS AND GIRLS).

Viscount SANDON: 35.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will re-introduce the specifications as to boys and girls in his weekly unemployment return?

Sir A. STEEL-MA1TLAND: To give separate figures for boys and girls would
almost double the size of the weekly unemployment return, and this might militate against the main object of this return, which is to provide a statement in a form in which it can be readily reproduced in the Press. I am, however, looking into the matter. I may add that figures of the live register for boys and girls are given for one week in each month in the "Labour Gazette."

Viscount SANDON: In that case, how is it that it could be done two or three months ago?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The difference from three months ago is that we are now, in the published statement each week, giving a good deal more information than we gave three months ago, by subdividing it into men permanently out of work, "stood off,"and casual. To give the full sub-division would increase the size, but if the newspapers are prepared to publish it in full in the increased size, I shall be only too glad to let them have it in that form.

AIR SERVICES.

AIRSHIP R101.

Mr. WELLS: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for Air when it is proposed to start the building of the airship R101?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): Certain preliminary constructional work on the power cars and internal structures for R101 is now proceeding. The erection of the hull cannot begin until delivery by the contractors of the necessary girders. Work on the contract is in hand, and delivery should commence in the summer.

AIRSHIP POLICY (IMPERIAL CONFERENCE).

Mr. WELLS: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he purposes to bring forward the question of airship policy for the consideration of the British Dominions at the Imperial Conference in the autumn?

Sir S. HOARE: The answer is in the affirmative.

AIR SERVICE, FRANCE.

Mr. DALTON: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the experiment
of a separate Air Service and Air Ministry has been tried in France; and, if so, whether it has been maintained or discontinued?

Sir S. HOARE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part does not, therefore, arise.

TERRITORIAL SQUADRONS.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for Air what progress has been made with regard to the recently created Territorial air squadrons?

Sir S. HOARE: Four Auxiliary Air Force squadrons have been formed in conjunction with the Territorial Associations of the City of London, the County of London, the City of Glasgow and the City of Edinburgh. Aerodromes, necessary buildings, aircraft and equipment have been provided for these squadrons. City headquarters, including offices, a drill hall, and facilities for technical training have been, or are being, provided for each squadron, and recruiting is in progress.

Mr. THURTLE: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether these squadrons are bombing squadrons or fighting squadrons?

Sir S. HOARE: They are bombing squadrons.

BRENNAN HELICOPTER.

Mr. G. HARVEY: 40 and 41.
asked the Secretary of State for Air (1) if he is in a position to state what is the total cost of the Brennan helicopter, apart from the £50,000 paid to the inventor, in the shape of material and labour borne by the Royal Aircraft establishment at Farnborough;
(2) what has become of the Brennan helicopter; and has the inventor been allowed to take it away or does it remain the property of the Government?

Sir S. HOARE: As regards the first question, the sum of £55,000, which I have stated to be the total amount expended on the Brennan helicopter experiments at the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough, was not all paid to the inventor, but includes £40,000
representing the cost of labour, materials and establishment charges at the Royal Aircraft Establishment, and £7,000 for salaries of the design staff working under Mr. Brennan.
As regards the second question, in view of the decision not to incur further expenditure upon the Brennan helicopter, the damaged machine has been offered to the inventor.

POST OFFICE.

PARCEL POST (SMALLHOLDERS).

Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK: 44.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider the desirability of permitting smallholders sending parcels of their own produce through the post at half rates, such smallholders availing themselves of this privilege to be registered at the post office nearest to their holdings, and attaching to all parcels posted by them special labels to establish their identity?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): The parcel post is already unremunerative, and I very much regret that I cannot, in the existing financial circumstances, recommend the facilities suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend. I may add that there would be considerable administrative difficulties in working a system based on preference to individuals.

WIRELESS STATION, EGYPT.

Mr. AMMON: 51.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he will reconsider the proposal to sell the wireless station at Abu Zabal, Egypt, to a private firm seeing that the plant has recently been improved at a considerable expenditure of public money, that since the improvements have been effected the station has shown signs of developing as a commercial asset, and that Government work is transmitted via Abu Zabal to Rhodesia, Iraq, Hong Kong, Singapore, Kualalumpur, and other British settlements in the East, and in view of the commercial possibilities and the strategic value of the station?

Viscount WOLMER: The reply is in the negative. The developments to which the hon. Member refers were taken into account when the decision was reached to sell the station.

INDIA.

LABOUR OFFICE, BOMBAY.

Mr. LANSBURY: 62.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the post of Director of the Government Labour Office at Bombay is to be combined with that of Director of Information; and, if so, whether he will inform the House of the considerations which influenced the Government in discontinuing the separate post of Director of the Labour Office?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): The Government of Bombay have abolished the separate post of Director of the Labour Office. According to the latest Bombay Civil List, the Director of information is acting as Director of the Labour Office in addition. As regards the last part of the question my Noble Friend has no detailed information.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the Noble Lord's chief endeavour be to get some information?

Earl WINTERTON: It is really a matter wholly to be dealt with by the Bombay Government, actually by statute law and constitutional practice.

Mr. LANSBURY: I hope he will get the information.

Earl WINTERTON: In courtesy to the hon. Member, certainly.

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE.

Mr. LANSBURY: 63.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will inform the House of the considerations which the Government of India had in view in inviting Mr. Narottam Morarji to proceed to Geneva as the employers' delegate to the Eighth International Labour Conference, which he has declined; and why this gentleman was not asked to attend the ninth conference, which is to discuss questions vitally affecting Indian shipping, on which subject Mr. Narottam is specially qualified to speak from personal experience?

Earl WINTERTON: In issuing such invitations due regard has to be paid to a variety of considerations, including the provision in the Labour Covenant that employers' delegates shall be chosen in agreement with the industrial organisations, if such exist, which are most representative of employers.

ARRESTS, GUJERAT.

Mr. LANSBURY: 64.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that 17 men belonging to a village near Viramgam, Gujerat, were recently arrested for trying to dissuade three Europeans from shooting birds on a lake in their village, as being contrary to the Vaishnavite religion of the villagers; and will steps be taken to ensure that in future villagers in India may with impunity try to dissuade Europeans from violating their religious scruples as to the sanctity of bird and animal life within their villages?

Earl WINTERTON: I have seen an account in an Indian paper of the incident referred to, but have no official information. While I, obviously, can give no general undertaking in the sense asked for, since dissuasion may take unlawful forms, I can assure the hon. Member that the Government always does its best to ensure that religious susceptibilities are reasonably respected.

Mr. LANSBURY: Has the Noble Lord realised that 17 men were arrested merely for trying to dissuade people from outraging other peoples' religious opinions?

Earl WINTERTON: I cannot accept the hon. Member's description as accurate until I have seen the official report. I have seen the account in the Indian newspapers, on which his information is no doubt also based. The Government pays every regard to peoples' religious susceptibilities, but I cannot give the general undertaking for which the hon. Member asks.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the Noble Lord try to get information about this question, because it is a fact that 17 men have been arrested, and the House ought to want to know under what conditions they were arrested.

Earl WINTERTON: I will endeavour to get the information.

AGRICULTURE.

Mr. LANSBURY (for Colonel WEDGWOOD): 65.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the terms of reference of the Committee appointed to inquire into the possibility of improvements in Indian agriculture include the methods of tenure of agricultural land,
and especially the two predominant systems in India known as ryotwari and zemindari?

Earl WINTERTON: The terms of reference lay down that it will not be within the scope of the Commission's duties to make recommendations regarding the existing system of land ownership and tenancy or of assessment of land revenue and irrigation charges. This limitation is not, however, intended to preclude the Commission from examining witnesses on these questions with a view to eliciting whether and to what extent the present conditions of agriculture, etc., are affected by them, or from referring to them in its Report as matters directly connected with the main question under inquiry. A copy of a Resolution published by the Government of India regarding the appointment of the Commission will be placed in the Library.

EMPIRE PRODUCE (MARKETING).

GOVERNMENT DECISIONS.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 45.
asked the Prime Minister what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take to give effect to the recommendations of the Imperial Economic Committee on the subject of promoting the sale in this country of Empire products?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Amery): I have been asked by the Prime Minister to reply to this question. The following decisions have been reached by His Majesty's Government with regard to the recommendations of the Imperial Economic Committee on the subject of the proposed grant for the furtherance of Empire marketing:

(i) As some time will be needed before the more important schemes for the expenditure of the grant mature, it seems unlikely that the full amount could profitably be used in the next financial year; it is therefore intended to set aside the sum of £500,000 in the financial year 1926–27, but it is proposed that the full amount of £1,000,000 should be provided for the year 1927–28.
(ii) The Imperial Economic Committee in their report contemplated that the body to be set up for the ad-
2030
ministration of the grant should be responsible to Parliament, and, in order to preserve strictly the principle of Parliamentary responsibility, the Estimate for this service will be brought before Parliament in the form of a special Vote to be administered by the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs. He will be assisted by a Commission or Board, which, in addition to himself as Chairman, will include the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies as Vice-Chairman, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland, and members nominated by the Secretary of State in consultation with the Chairman of the Imperial Economic Committee. The Secretary to the new body will be Accounting Officer for the Vote.
The grant will be in the form of a Grant-in-Aid, so that the balance unexpended within the financial year can be carried forward.
The new body will be able to appoint sub-Committees, when necessary, with outside personnel; but it is desired that it should so far as practicable make use of existing Governmental machinery: e.g., that full use should be made of the existing organisations for research.
It will be a direction to the new body that home agricultural produce should be included with imported Empire products in the scope of the grant. I should add that His Majesty's Government have proposed, and the other Governments concerned have agreed, that an additional member should be appointed by His Majesty's Government to the Imperial Economic Committee itself as representative of home agricultural interests.
The form of the proposed organisation for the administration of the Empire Marketing grant, as well as the future of the Imperial Economic Committee itself, will no doubt be fully considered at. the forthcoming Imperial Conference.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that effective steps will be taken to discriminate against or otherwise discourage the importation of Empire products that are produced under unfair conditions of labour?

Mr. AMERY: I consider the conditions of labour generally in the Empire compare very favourably with similar conditions in any other country. The matter will be kept in view in encouraging Empire produce.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the claims of British fisheries be included in this Committee We have heard a great deal about agriculture, but not about fisheries.

Mr. AMERY: I imagine the case of British fisheries, as of Empire fisheries, will be dealt with by the Imperial Economic Committee when they come to that section of their investigations, and upon the recommendations they make the Board may be able to take steps.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the House have an opportunity of discussing any of these points, before the meeting of the Imperial Economic Committee?

Mr. AMERY: The Estimates for Dominion Affairs will afford a natural opportunity.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Are we to understand that the £1,000,000 is to be in excess of the £500,000 to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, or is it to be the total amount?

Mr. AMERY: There is to be £1,000,000 annually. In the first year only £500,000 is to be spent, because there is no likelihood of schemes being ready to ensure sufficient expenditure in the time.

NELSON STATUE, DUBLIN.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that the statue of Lord Nelson, erected in Dublin in 1808, is to be pulled down; and whether this statue can be acquired by the nation and re-erected at Portsmouth, from which port he embarked before the battle of Trafalgar?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I have seen a Press report to this effect, but there are no funds at the disposal of the Government for such a purchase.

HEAVY INDUSTRIES.

Colonel GRETTON: 49.
asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been directed to the paragraph under the heading of pig iron, on page 12 of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Control of the Coal Industry, which indicates the decreased consumption of coal in the steel and iron trade and also in shipbuilding and engineering, and states that it is only to the revival of these heavy industries that the coalmining industry can look for any substantial increase in the home consumption of coal; and whether the Government proposes to take any steps to promote the revival of these heavy industries, including iron and steel?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am aware of the paragraph referred to. I made a statement on the matter in answer to my bon. Friend the Member for Penrith, on 24th February, and to that I have nothing to add.

Colonel GRETTON: Are we to understand from the reply that the paragraph in the report of the Commission has not moved the Government to take action?

The PRIME MINISTER: We are not proposing to take any action.

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Mr. MARCH: 54.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the hardship imposed upon some widows under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, whereby a child reaching the age of 14 years at the commencement of the education term the pension of 5s. per week is stopped, although by law the child has to continue at school until the end of the term, which is in some eases one or two months after the child is 14 years of age; and will he issue Regulations enabling the payment of 5s. per week to be continued until the education term is ended in such cases?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): A child's allowance under the Act would not be stopped in the circumstances mentioned if it were clear that the child was remaining at school. As, however, a child may, in certain cases, be allowed to leave school before the end of the term in which the
age of 14 is reached, inquiries are sometimes necessary before the allowance can be continued after the attainment of the age of 14.

Mr. MARCH: Would the parent have to make application to the registry for the child to continue at the school till the end of the term?

Sir K. WOOD: I should like to have notice. In all these cases we endeavour to meet the convenience of the parents, although it is necessary sometimes to make further inquiries. If the hon. Member has a case in mind, I will look into it.

HOUSING (RURAL DISTRICTS).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 55.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the housing conditions in rural districts, he is prepared to grant financial assistance towards making the many existing ill-conditioned houses more habitable and up to date?

Sir K. WOOD: The question of reconditioning houses in rural areas is at present under consideration, but my right hon. Friend is not in a position to make a statement on the subject.

MINERS' DISEASES.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: 56.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that miners' nystagmus and other diseases to which miners are liable are not included in the Third Schedule of the Workmen's Compensation (Consolidated) Act, 1925; and whether, as Section 44 precludes payment of compensation for any diseases not mentioned in the above Schedule to that Act, he will state what steps he proposes to take to make clear the position of persons contracting these diseases after May next?

Captain HACKING: I have been asked to reply. The Act of 1925 was a purely consolidating Measure, and the reason why miners' nystagmus, beat knee, beat elbow and beat hand are not specified in the Third Schedule to the Act is that they are not specified in the corresponding Schedule to the Act of 1906. The right to compensation, however, in respect of
these diseases remains unaffected. They were brought within the Act of 1906 by Orders made by the Secretary of State under Section 8 of that Act, and it is expressly provided in the 1925 Act that any Orders in force under a previous Act shall continue in force and have effect as if made under the 1925 Act. Subject, therefore, to the provisions of any future Orders, the new Act will apply to these diseases in precisely the same way as the present Acts. The position is quite clear, and I do not think it should be necessary for me to take any special steps in the matter.

LEAD AND ZINC MINES.

Mr.Colonel WOODCOCK: 57.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of lead and zinc mines on the Home Office list in 1913; how many there are at the present time; and what number of men were employed in these mines on the respective dates?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): The number of lead and zinc mines in the List of Mines for 1913 was 139, and the number of persons employed at those mines was 3,616. The corresponding figures at the present time are 107 mines and 1,981 persons. At both dates persons engaged in getting other minerals in conjunction with lead and zinc are included.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the closing of these mines throws a, large number of men out of employment?

Colonel LANE FOX: Yes; I believe that is so.

COMPANY ACTS.

Mr. Colonel WOODCOCK: 67.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is yet in a position to state when a Report may be expected from the Departmental Committee now sitting with reference to the Company Acts; and, as the matter is one of urgency to the general public, if he is in a position to expedite the Report?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): I understand that the Committee's report will probably be com-
pleted at an early date; but I think that in an inquiry of this magnitude there is nothing to be gained by urging the Committee to make a hurried report.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Does the hon. Member recollect the reply which his right hon. Friend gave to me 14 days ago, when he hoped he might be in a position to say something soon? Will the hon. Member expedite the reply?

Sir B. CHADWICK: Fourteen days is not very long. I hope the Report will be out very soon.

TRADE FACILITIES GUARANTEE (APPLEBY IRON COMPANY).

Mr. Lieut.-Colonel THOM: 68.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, with reference to the recent decision of the Trade Facilities Act Committee to provide a guarantee of £650,000 for the extension of the works of the Appleby Iron Company, the Committee of Research were satisfied that the steel-makers' plant in this country was efficient and well up to date, and that, with that efficient and modern plant, steel could not be produced in this country at the prices which were being quoted by the Continental makers for delivery to our shipbuilding yards; and whether, in these circumstances, he will give an assurance that no further grants under the Act will be made to steel makers in this country?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): The Committee of Civil Research is a Committee of the Cabinet, and it would therefore be contrary to established practice to make public its recommendations to the Government. As regards the last part of the question, the Trade Facilities Act. Advisory Committee will continue to deal on their merits with applications for guarantees.

Mr. KIDD: Can the right hon. Member say whether before making the grants the Trade Facilities Committee had before them the conclusions of the Research Committee? If not, why not, and if they had, what consideration contrary to those conclusions led them to refuse the grant?

Mr. McNEILL: That is covered by the answer which I have given.

MOTOR TRAFFIC.

TECHNICAL OFFENCES.

Mr. Captain BRASS: 70.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the remarks of the Marylebone magistrate in connection with a summons issued by the Metropolitan Police against a lady, where the magistrate stated that half these motor summonses were perfectly ridiculous; and whether, in view of the fact that her car was left in a well-lighted street and was plainly visible at the time to all other road users without its lights on, he will give instructions that summonses for technical offences of this kind should not be applied for unless the vehicle concerned is a real public danger and not plainly visible to other road users?

Captain HACKING: I have considered all the circumstances carefully, hut I cannot issue instructions to the police giving them authority to connive at breaches of the law.

Captain BRASS: Will the hon. and gallant Member see that due consideration is taken of the spirit of the law, instead of the strict letter of the Act?

PARKING ATTENDANTS, LONDON.

Mr. Captain BRASS: 71.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that in certain motor parking places in the Metropolitan police area men are given licences by the police to look after ears without any remuneration; that they are given books and vouchers by the police which they are expected to return daily; and whether, if it is proposed to continue the employment of these men, he will arrange that they shall be properly remunerated for their services by those who license them, instead of expecting them to gain a precarious livelihood at the expense of the motoring public?

Captain HACKING: No, Sir; these attendants are licensed under Section 19 of the Metropolitan Streets Act, 1867, which makes no provision for their payment from police funds.

Captain BRASS: Does the hon. and gallant Member think that these men should be given licences without payment by the people who license them?

Captain HACKING: We have no power to alter the Act.

Captain BRASS: You have powers to license the men.

SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES (GRINDING-WHEEL INDUSTRY).

Mr. ERSKINE: 73.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the grinding-wheel industry could be doubled, to the advantage of all concerned, if a measure of safeguarding were extended to it; that in such an event there would be no increase in prices; and, in view of the fact that at present most of this trade goes to America, can he see his way to bringing in an amending Bill to the Safeguarding of Industries Act to cover such cases as this for the benefit of our unemployed in this country?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I have been asked to reply. I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him by the Prime Minister on the 3rd December last, to which I have nothing to add.

AUSTRALIAN ZINC CONCENTRATES.

Mr. Colonel WOODCOCK: 74.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon what date the Government contract which expires 30th June, 1930, for the purchase of Australian zinc concentrates was made; what is the estimated loss to date; what is the total estimated loss expected on 30th June, 1930; and whether he has considered the effect of this contract on the mines in England and Wales?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I have been asked to reply. The contract for the purchase of Australian zinc concentrates which expires on 30th June, 1930, is dated 9th April, 1913. The net loss from April, 1918, to 31st March, 1925, the date of the last completed accounts, was £1,700,000. The price paid under the contract varies according to the market price of spelter, and for this reason it is not possible to say what will be the total loss on the contract. I have no reason to think that the contract has had any adverse effect upon the mines in the United Kingdom.

Colonel WOODCOCK: In view of the tremendous loss of £1,700,000, lasting over many years, would it not be better if the Australian Government were asked
whether some arrangement could be made to cancel the contract, not only because of the loss involved but because of the number of the men thrown out of employment?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I do not think that is possible. This matter has been under the very close consideration of the Government for years, and I do not think that any openings have been forgotten.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Can the hon. Member say who made the contract?

Sir B. CHADWICK: Yes. I think we were committed to the contract, as far as I remember, in 1916, by the Asquith Coalition Government. I think the contract was actually signed by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Wrath-man), a distinguished Socialist, Dr. Addison, and Mr. McKenna.

Mr. W. THORNE: Why does the hon. Member say that. Dr. Addison is a. Socialist?

NATIONAL DEBT.

Mr. Sir F. WISE: 76.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount by which the National Debt has been reduced by surpluses and sinking fund since 1920–21, and the savings in interest during the same period?

Mr. McNEILL: Between 1st January, 1920, and 31st March, 1925, the cash applied to the reduction of the National Debt was £736,000,000. Excluding the debt due to the United' States of America, Government, the reduction in the interest charge amounts to £52,000,000 per annum, from £326,000,000 in 192–21 to £274,000,000 in the Budget of 1925–26.
The annual interest due on the United States of America. Government debt in 1920–21 was £57,000,000 as against £28,750,000 provided in the Budget of 1925. The reduction in this latter case was not due wholly to capital repayments but in part to the reduction in the rate of interest effected by the Funding Agreement and in part to improved exchange.
The total reduction in interest charges a thus amounts to approximately £80,000,000 a year

DEBT SERVICES (GREAT BRITAIN, UNITED STATES AND GERMANY).

Mr. Sir FREDRIC WISE: 75.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an approximate statement, in sterling, of the annual charges and percentages for the National Debt services

THE FIGURES of annual charges for debt service are as follow. These figures do not include in the case of the United States and Germany the debts of the Federal States; and the results in the three countries are not therefore strictly comparable.


—
Interest.
Redemption.
Total Interest and Redemption.


Currency.
Sterling.
Currency.
Sterling.
Currency.
Sterling.



$
£
$
£
$
£


United States (30th June, 1925).
830,000,000
170,500,000
484,800,000
99,600,000
1,314,800,000
270,100,000



R.M.

R.M.

R.M.



Germany (31st March,1925).
109,800,000
5,500,000
413,700,000
20,700,000
523,500,000
26,200,000



1,000,000,000
50,000,000


Payments under the Dawes scheme (excluding service of the Dawes Loan).

76,200,000


United Kingdom Estimate 1925–26.
—
305,000,000
—
50,000,000
—
355,000,000

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (TEMPORARY CLERKS).

Mr. Colonel APPLIN: 78.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that temporary clerks who, as the alternative to dismissal, are offered another appointment which involves a transfer to another town are obliged to pay, out of their own pockets, the expenses of their removal to the new town, and in view of the low wages these officers receive, he can see his way to meet this charge upon them?

Mr. McNEILL: As an exceptional arrangement, a contribution towards travelling expenses may be made to temporary clerks who are transferred with their work from one town to another. It is a general rule of the Civil Service not to allow removal expenses where the transfer is made in the interests of the officer concerned, and I should not feel justified in relaxing this rule in the case of temporary clerks who are not transferred with their work, but, as an alternative to the termination of their em-
for 1925 in the United States, Germany and Great Britain?

Mr. McNEILL: I do not understand what percentage my hon. Friend desires, but as regards the annual charges, I will, with his permission, circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

ployment, are offered another appointment in another town.

Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that civil employers in transferring their servants bear a proportion of the removal expenses? Could not the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter, having regard to the low wages which these people receive, and do something, so that they may receive a proportion of their removal expenses?

Mr. McNEILL: I have no knowledge of the facts mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member.

Sir F. HALL: May I tell my right hon. Friend that in the Ordinary course of events that is done?

TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES (PRINTING).

Mr. TREVELYAN: 79.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been called to the far more economical, and yet equally efficient, system of printing the telephone
directories in New York as compared with London; and whether he will consider the American method and its applicability to this country?

Mr. McNEILL: I am aware of the New York method of setting up telephone directories, and its applicability to the London Telephone Directory has been under consideration for some time.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: Are tenders asked from private firms as well as from the. Government Stationery Department?

EAST AFRICA (NATIVE SOLDIERS, GERMAN PAYMENTS).

Mr. Colonel APPLIN: 80.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that a German mission, mainly composed of officers, is being sent to East Africa to pay the native soldiers who served in the War under the German flag; why there is any special need for such a mission; and whether the Colonial Office has sanctioned its activities?

Mr. AMERY: Two ex-officials of the former German Civil Government in Tanganyika, Herren Brandes and Muller, have been permitted to proceed to the Territory in connection with the verification of debts due to natives employed by that Government during the War. The investigations are being conducted under Regulations laid down by His Majesty's Government and accepted by the German Government, and all payments will be made through British officials.

Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT WARD: Is there any reason why native soldiers should have preference over the other creditors of Germany?

Mr. AMERY: These are direct debts which the German Government has expressed its willingness to pay, and subject to Regulations ensuring payment through Great Britain, and in other ways safeguarding the Government of Tanganyika, we are only too glad to get the payment.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: Is the War Indemnity not a direct debt?

Colonel APPLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that considerable comment has been caused by this action in Paris?

TURCO-IRAQ FRONTIER.

Mr. THURTLE: 81.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has any information regarding the disturbances taking place on the Turco-Iraq frontier?

Mr. AMERY: I am not aware that any disturbances are taking place on the Turco-Iraq frontier.

Mr. THURTLE: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the recent accounts in the "Times"and the "Daily Telegraph"regarding these disturbances?

Mr. AMERY: Yes. I looked at the map, and found that they were some little distance from the Turco-Iraq frontier.

EX-SERVICE MEN (MINISTRY OF LABOUR).

Mr. Viscount SANDON: 26.
asked the Minister of Labour for what reason he is discharging disabled ex-service men engaged on telephone and other duties in his Department and substituting girls in their place?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: A similar question was asked yesterday. I have made inquiries, and cannot find that any case of discharge of this kind has taken place. If my Noble Friend will communicate to me any information on which his question is based, so that I may inquire into the matter, I shall be grateful.

BRITISH ARMY.

CAVALRY REGIMENT (COST).

Mr. LANSBURY (for Colonel WEDGWOOD): 42.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the cost of the cavalry regiment added to the establishment from India, can be assumed to be£108,700, or whether addition must he made thereto of the cost of preparing and equipping additional accommodation?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): Yes, Sir, the figure given includes the maintenance cost of accommodation, and no special capital expenditure was involved by the return of the regiment.

COURT-MARTIAL SENTENCE (CAPTAIN T. BROMLEY).

Mr. Sir A. HOLBROOK: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will reconsider the case of Captain T. Bromley, Royal Army Ordnance Corps, who, having been convicted of defalcations by court-martial, and having served 18 months in prison for this offence, is now deprived of the whole of his pension to meet these defalcations; and is he aware that anex gratia allowance for the maintenance of his wife and family was reduced by one-half, on his discharge, though owing to the condition of his health his return to his home is an additional burden on the family's resources?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am aware that the ex-officer to whom my hon. and gallant Friend refers was sentenced to a period of imprisonment for larceny and conversion of public moneys. As public funds suffered to the extent of over £1,000, the Ministry of Pensions, at the request of the War Office, have withheld the disability retired pay, and the amount so withheld has been set off against the loss. I see no reason for varying that arrangement. The last part of the question regarding the amount of theex gratia allowance, should be addressed to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Pensions.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a double punishment for one offence? Is that in accordance with the principles of English justice?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I believe that it is in accordance with the principles of English justice. It is not a double punishment; it is a recovery of the loss to the public funds caused by this man.

KENSINGTON GARDENS.

Mr. WINDSOR: 52.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he has received any complaints against the action of his Department in cutting up the turf, etc., in Kensington Gardens for the purpose of laying electric cables; what sanction, if any, was obtained before this work was undertaken; and what is the reason for spoiling the amenities of this park?

Captain HACKING: I have been asked to reply. In accordance with the usual
practice, permission was given by the Office of Works to a power company to lay a main across Kensington Gardens. No complaints have reached the Department, and when the work is completed, the amenities of the park will be in no way affected.

HYDE PARK DEMONSTRATION (POLICE ACTION).

Mr. MARCH (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he was aware that a demonstration organised by the London unemployed was forcibly broken up and dispersed by the police in Hyde Park on Tuesday evening last, and whether he could tell the House what breach of the law the demonstrators had committed which led to the forcible breaking up of the meeting; and was he aware that the major part of the men who took part in the demonstration were ex-soldiers demonstrating their demand for work?

Mr. LANSBURY: I desire to put a similar question. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will answer both together.

Mr. THURTLE (by Private Notice): asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the disturbance which took place in Hyde Park on the occasion of the unemployed demonstration on Tuesday, and whether he has received a report from the Commissioner of Police as to the reasons which brought about the disturbance, and led up to the charge of the police on the demonstrators?

Mr. BUCHANAN (by Private Notice): asked the Home Secretary whether he has any statement to make as to the reason why the police authorities forcibly dispersed a demonstration of unemployed which was being held in Hyde Park on Tuesday last?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I have received a Report from the Commissioner of Police on this incident. I understand that the declared object of the demonstration was to secure the release of certain Communist prisoners. After the speeches were over, disorder broke out in the crowd that was present, and the police had to intervene
and disperse it. One arrest was made. I am not aware that the major part of the crowd were ex-soldiers.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is it not a fact, in accord with the statements in the newspapers this morning, that the real cause of the trouble was that one of the Fascisti waved his flag and a Socialist waved the red flag?

Sir A. HOLBROOK: Was not the trouble caused by the fact that at the head of the procession were banners bearing the words "Release the Communists,"and that that aroused the indignation of the crowd.?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it not a fact that the men who were involved in the procession were giving every indication of going home, that there was no sign of rowdyism until certain people who wished for a row started to arouse the feelings of a certain number of the crowd; and is the right hon. Gentleman taking the same steps to suppress other organisations having demonstrations as he has taken in this case?

Commander WILLIAMS: Before my right hon. Friend answers, will he say what proportion of this crowd was of foreign origin?

Mr. BUCHANAN: The same number as in your party.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is quite impossible to say what proportion of the crowd were of foreign origin. It is equally clear that the object of the crowd was not that suggested by the hon. Member opposite. I have here a speech made at the end of the meeting, and in it I find one of the principal organisers saying:
We have held up the traffic of London. I say if these men are not allowed outside we will hold up the business of London, and the only way to do it is this. We have been able to hold up the traffic in the West End for nearly an hour"—
They deliberately marched through London at a very slow pace, in order to incommode. His Majesty's subjects. Another gentleman said:
The main reason we are here this afternoon is to show our solidarity and bring the necessary pressure to bear on the illegal action of Joynson-Hicks, the present Home Secretary of this country, in putting 12 members of the working class behind prison bars in a civilised country.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is that not true? Do you deny it?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: There were other speeches of a similar character which had nothing whatever to do with the question of the unemployed.

Mr. LANSBURY: Can a demonstration he broken up, legally, because of speeches in the terms just quoted?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Certainly not; but the suggestion was made by the hon. Member opposite that this demonstration, broken up by the police, was a demonstration held bybona fide unemployed men. I say that was not the case, and that it was a demonstration followed by riots in the crowd. One man was arrested, but I do not wish to say much about his case, because he has already been charged. Hon. Members opposite will see the subject matter of the charge against him in this evening's papers.

Mr. LANSBURY: Has the right hon. Gentleman the least evidence that the persons, whoever they may be, who organised this demonstration were creating any disturbance at all; and is it not the duty of the police, if they interfere, to take into custody the people who foment and make the disturbance, and not always to charge Communists? The Fascists get away with it every time.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As far as the Fascisti are concerned, or any other body, I have repeatedly given instructions—and it is well known to the police that these are my instructions—that whoever creates disturbance is to be dealt with, whether he be Fascist or Communist or anything else. On this occasion, I understand there was only one arrest, and that was for using obscene and insulting language.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a considerable number of people were very badly mauled and knocked about by the police; that it was not merely the men on foot who dispersed the crowd, but the constabulary on horseback, who charged the crowd and did a considerable amount of damage to many of my constituents?

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Ramsay MacDonald.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Will the Prime Minister inform the House what business he proposes to take when we resume after Easter; and can he at the same time give us any indication as to when the Budget statement will be taken?

The PRIME MINISTER: On Tuesday and Wednesday—until 8.15—and on Thursday, 13th, 14th and 15th April, we shall consider the Money Resolutions to the Economy Bill and the Committee stage of the Bill, and on Thursday, in addition, the Second Reading of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill. I hope the Budget may be taken on 26th April.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What is the intention of the Government in regard to business down for to-night? Is it proposed to take any part of the Economy Bill to-morrow before the Motion for the Adjournment?

The PRIME MINISTER: We want to get the first two Clauses, and we hope to get them to-night.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If these are not finished, will the discussion be continued to-morrow, before the Motion for the Adjournment is taken?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, if we do not succeed in getting them to-night.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and that, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 8, Private Business set down for consideration at a Quarter-past Eight of the Clock this evening, by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, may be taken after Half-past Nine of the Clock."—[The Prime Minister.]

The Houses divided: Ayes, 235; Noes, 118.

Division No. 106.]
AYES.
[3.58 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Chapman, Sir S.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Albery, Irving James
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hall, Capt. W. D A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hartington, Marquess of


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cope, Major William
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Couper, J. B.
Haslam, Henry C.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N)
Hawke, John Anthony


Atkinson, C.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxt'd, Henley)


Balniel, Lord
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Crookshank, Capt. H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh' by)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Davidson, J.(Hertt' d, Hemel Hempst'd)
Hills, Major John Waller


Berry, Sir George
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hilton, Cecil


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hogg, Rt. Hon Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Blundell, F. N.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Boothby, R. J. G.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Holt, Captain H. P.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw 'k, Nun.)


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Brass, Captain W.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Falls, Sir Charles F.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald


Briggs, J. Harold
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Briscoe, Richard George
Fermoy, Lord
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'and, Whitch'n)


Brittain sir Harry
Fielden, E. B.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Huntingfield, Lord


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Hurst, Gerald B.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Hutchison, G.A. Clark (Mldl'n & P'bl's)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks. Newb'y)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Jacob, A. E.


Bullock, Captain M.
Gee, Captain R.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Burman, J. B.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Goff, Sir Park
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Campbell, E. T.
Grace, John
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Grant, J. A.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Gretton, Colonel John
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A.(Birm., W.)
Grotrian, H. Brent
Loder, J. de V.


Looker, Herbert William
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Lord, Walter Greaves-
Pielou, D. P.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Lougher, L.
Pilcher, G.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Radford, E. A.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Raine, W.
Templeton, W. P.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Ramsden, E.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J, G. (Dumbarton)


MacIntyre, Ian
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


McLean, Major A.
Remnant, sir James
Tinne, J. A.


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Rice, Sir Frederick
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Macquisten, F. A.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Malone, Major P. B.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Margesson, Captain D.
Ropner, Major L.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Meller, R. J.
Salmon, Major I.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Merriman, F. B.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wells, S. R.


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Mitchell, Sir w. Lane (Streatham)
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Sandon, Lord
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Shepperson, E. W.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Moreing, Captain A. H.
Skelton, A. N.
Wolmer, Viscount


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Womersley, W. J.


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Murchison, C. K.
Smith-Carington, Neville w.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Smithers, Waldron
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Nelson, Sir Frank
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F. (Will'sden, E.)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)



Nuttall, Ellis
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Pennefather, Sir John
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Commander B, Eyres Monsell and




 Colonel Gibbs.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hardie, George D.
Rose, Frank H.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Harney, E. A.
Sexton, James


Ammon, Charles George
Harris, Percy A.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayday, Arthur
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barnes, A.
Hayes, John Henry
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barr, J.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sitch, Charles H.


Briant, Frank
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Smillie, Robert


Broad, F. A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, Rennle (Penistone)


Bromley, J.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Snell, Harry


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Buchanan, G.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stamford, T. W.


Caps, Thomas
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Stephen, Campbell


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cluse, W. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Taylor, R. A.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kennedy, T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Compton, Joseph
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Thorne, w. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cove, W. G.
Kirkwood, D.
Thurtie, E.


Dalton, Hugh
Lansbury, George
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lawson, John James
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Livingstone, A. M.
Viant, S. P.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lowth, T.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Day, Colonel Harry
Lunn, William
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dennison, R.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Watson, W. M. (Donfermilne)


Duncan, C.
Mackinder, W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dunnico, H.
March, S.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maxton, James
Westwood, J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Morris, R. H.
Whiteley, W.


Gillett, George M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Gosling, Harry
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Palin, John Henry
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Paling, w.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Windsor, Walter


Groves, T.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wright, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Robinson, W.C. (Yorks, W R., Elland)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Warne and Mr. T. Henderson,


Question put, and agreed to.

LOCAL LEGISLATION (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I rise to ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a comparatively minor point, but one of some importance to Scottish Members. Under the Local Legislation (Scotland) Act, 1899, it is in the purview of the Chairman of Ways and Means, in the case of a Scottish Bill dealing with local legislation, to have it considered here in London if he thinks the subject matter of sufficient importance to warrant that course. On the other hand, the Chairman of Ways and Means under this Act can send such a Bill, if he chooses, to Scotland to be considered by a Committee, there. The case which I wish to cite concerns a Provisional Order Bill promoted by the Greenock Corporation. I have carefully watched the Parliamentary Papers for some notice regarding that Bill which contains a Clause of tremendous importance to a large number of Scottish Members, if not to other Members from other parts of the country. That Bill, instead of being retained here to go through the ordinary course of procedure, is being sent up to Edinburgh to go before a local Committee. I wish to know if I have any Parliamentary means of raising the issue as to whether or not it is right to send a Bill containing a Clause of this character to be dealt with in Edinburgh. The Bill was never advertised, and up to this stage we have had no opportunity of raising the matter.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member has not read the Act with sufficient care—I mean the Local Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899. If he will look at it again, he will see that under Section 2 all Scottish petitions for powers must be heard in Scotland, unless the Chairman of Ways and Means in this House and the Chairman in the other House together think these are of such a nature that they ought to be considered here at Westminster. That is just the other way round from what the hon. Member has suggested. That is the duty of the two Chairmen set forth in Section 2 of the Act, and they have to perform that duty under the conditions set out in the Statute.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I was aware that the two Chairmen had the right to decide whether or not a Bill was of sufficient
importance to be retained here. My point is that in this case they have allowed a Bill, which has never been properly advertised and which contains a Clause of great importance to many Members of this House, to go to Edinburgh, and I wish to know if I have any Parliamentary means of raising the question as to why a Bill with such an important Clause hidden in it, should go to Edinburgh instead of going through the ordinary process here.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that the form of procedure laid down in the Statute is not a matter which can be reviewed by the House.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Have we no way of raising the question of the conduct of the Chairman of Ways and Means and the other Chairman in this matter? I do not mean to make any implication whatever as regards their honesty in any way, but, merely as a matter of Parliamentary procedure, can we not question why they have taken this action?

Mr. SPEAKER: No, certainly not. But the hon. Member must recollect that these Provisional Orders have to come up at a later stage for confirmation by Parliament There will then be an opportunity when he can raise any question, if his point be not dealt with by the Committee which sits in Scotland.

CASES SUB JUDICE.

Captain GEE: I desire to ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker on a point that has just been raised for the second or third time in the last three months in this House. I refer to the last statement by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, when he said that he had no right to make any statement about a man whose ease wassub judice. I desire to ask you whether under the Rules you can prevent any Member of this House raising a case that issub judice or whether you can only advise on a point of good order and good taste.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have not any power to prevent a question in regard to a case which issub judice. All that I can do is to suggest that it is not desirable, while a matter is before the Courts, that it should he dealt with by Debate in the House.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION.

RECREATION (OPEN SPACES).

Mr. CADOGAN: I beg to give notice that, on this day four weeks, I shall call attention to the lack of facilities for recreation in urban industrial areas, and the consequent need of acquiring or preserving open spaces for this purpose, and move a Resolution.

NATIVE RACES (EXPLOITATION).

Mr. CECIL WILSON: I beg to give notice that, on this clay four weeks, I shall call attention to the question of the exploitation of the labour of native races in Crown Colonies and Mandated Territories, and move a Resolution.

REPARATION FUND AND INTER-ALLIED DEBTS.

Sir FRANK SANDERSON: I beg to give notice that, on this day four weeks, I shall call attention to the Reparation Fund and Inter-Allied Debts, and move a Resolution.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House do meet To-morrow, at Eleven of the Clock; that no Questions shall be taken after Twelve of the Clock; and that at Five of the Clock Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House without Question put."—[The Prime Minister.]

Mr. BATEY: Should I be in order in seeking to amend this Resolution? If so, I should desire to insert, in line 3, the words "until Wednesday next"after the word "House"so that it would read
and that at Five of the Clock Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House until Wednesday next without out Question put.
I want to make a protest against this long adjournment.

Mr. SPEAKER: This Motion does not deal with the length of the Adjournment. That will come subsequently. It cannot be dealt with on this Motion.

ESTIMATES.

First Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS ACT (1911) AMENDMENT BILL,

"to amend the Protection of Animals Act, 1911,"presented by Dr. SHIELS; supported by Sir Frank Sanderson, Mr. David Grenfell, Mr. Hannon, Mr. Thomas Williams, Sir George Hume, Mr. Whiteley, Sir Philip Dawson, Mr. Wragg, Mr. Trevelyan Thomson, Mr. Morgan Jones, and Sir Philip Richardson; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 13th April, and to be printed. [Bill 81.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (added in respect of the Midwives and Maternity Homes Bill): Mr. Grace; and had appointed in substitution: Major Kenyon-Slaney.

Report to lie upon the Table.

METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — ECONOMY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Amendment as to proportion of contributions payable respectively by insured persons and employers and by the Treasury.)

Mr. HARNEY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be postponed."
There cannot be any doubt that this Clause very intimately affects the approved societies. Not only does it alter the whole of the financial structure of the scheme with which they are very closely connected, but it alters the benefits that they will be able to pay. In these circumstances, I would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether the approved societies have been consulted before this Bill has been brought forward.

The CHAIRMAN: In a very long series of ruling on Motions to postpone Clauses, it has been held that the merits of the Clause may not be referred to. The only argument possible is whether it would be better to take this Clause after others.

Mr. HARNEY: I was aware of that fact, and was not intending to go beyond it. The point I am making is this: It is, in my submission, advisable not to take this Clause now. It is obvious that all the Clauses cannot be taken before Easter, and during the Easter holidays the approved societies have their usual annual meeting, and will, therefore, have an opportunity of considering this Clause. In supplementing that view, I was pointing out that it is part of the whole scheme that not only should the approved societies be consulted before any great change is made affecting them, but that the Advisory Committee set up in 1911 should always stand between the approved societies and any Government action. As a matter of fact, I believe in the case of every one of the amending Acts, from 1911 to this date, the approved societies
have had an opportunity of considering any drastic alteration of the scheme such as is here suggested. That the approved societies are very much concerned I think I can show, and I hope I will be in order in reading some of the resolutions that have been put in my hand and which have been passed by the approved societies.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member is in order so far, but, if he goes into the merits of the resolutions, he will be out of order.

Mr. HARNEY: I accept your ruling, but may I point out that a large number of the approved societies are now about to hold their annual meetings; I therefore urge that, until they have had that opportunity of expressing their views upon it, this Clause ought not to be taken. The Bill cannot possibly be completed before Easter, and there is, in my submission, the strongest possible ground for this Clause, which goes to the root of the mischief as the approved societies see it, not being dealt with until they have had that opportunity of considering it.

Mr. HARRIS: I am going to appeal to the practical common sense of the Minister in charge of the Bill. He has One great quality—tact. By his tact he has been able to guide Bills comparatively rapidly through Committee, and I am very anxious for his reputation. I do not want him to be delayed needlessly long. I quite appreciate that the Budget is essential, and cannot be carried until this Bill become an Act of Parliament. Therefore, the more controversy and the more discussion there is, the more likely is there to be delay. I think he will be the first to admit that the most controversial Clause is this Clause. We are bound to criticise it word for word and line for line so long as the various friendly societies are not satisfied. I do not know that there are any more public-spirited or patriotic citizens than the members of the various friendly societies. The very fact that they belong to these friendly societies is proof of their goodwill and their enthusiasm in public work. They are all meeting at Easter. Easter is the period when all these societies meet for their annual gatherings. They are meeting with this terrible cloud over them, and they are bringing pressure on Members on all sides of the House to attack this particular Clause.
They are reasonable people, and it is possible we may be able to placate them, The Minister may be able to make some concessions that will ensure the smooth passage of this Clause, but now is the time. If at Easter he goes round to various assemblies and argues with them and meets their objections, we shall be in a much better position to consider the Bill, and probably shall not need to keep him up all night. That is not good for his health or for the health of the Members of the House, and surely it is common sense to take the less controversial Clauses of this Bill, like the registration of electors, which do not rouse very great passions, rather than a Clause of this kind which strikes at the very root of our health system and all our methods of insurance, that disturbs all our friendly societies, and that is likely to rouse great passions. I make this appeal to him with all the more confidence because I remember he gave the Poor Law authorities 12 months' notice. When he had outlined his Bill, he gave the Poor Law authorities 12 months to sit on it. Here he comes aiming a pistol at the heads of the great friendly societies, with whom Parliament is a partner, and with practically 24 hours' notice he tries to rush through a revolutionary scheme. That is not a good way, for a Conservative majority to carry through legislation. That is not the way to strengthen the system of insurance as the foundation of dealing with health. He would be wise, therefore, he would be sagacious, in fact he would be helping his Measure if he postponed this particular Clause to the end. By that means he would have time to consult all the persons concerned and to get the co-operation of the friendly societies instead of their hostility. Let me remind him of the names of these societies—the Foresters, the Hearts of Oak—

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think the names of the societies are really relevant to the hon. Gentleman's argument.

Mr. HARRIS: I was only going to add ore other—the Oddfellows. I do not want the Minister to be regarded as hostile to the Oddfellows. I think he would be very wise to postpone this Clause, and let us get on with the rest of the Bill. There is no reason why we should not to day make good progress with all these comparatively minor
Clauses. Then, after Easter, refreshed and strengthened by contact with the great friendly societies, we could help him to pass his first Clause.

Mr. WALLHEAD: On a point of Order. Surely it is germane to the discussion of this Clause that Members may give the names of the societies opposed to it, as some indication of the volume of opinion against it?

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member had had as much experience of these postponing Motions as I have had, he would know that the limits are very narrow. It is a valid argument to say that it would be well to delay the discussion of this Clause, so that it could be considered by these societies. But to go into the weight of the opinion behind that argument would practically be to go into the merits of the Clause, and I do not think that can be pursued.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Supposing we were discussing someone likely to be hanged, surely it would be in order to mention Smith's name as one who objected to it. The insured persons must be named, because they are provided by the Statute, and they have objected. Surely we must bring out the names, to inform the Committee of the measure of the objection.

The CHAIRMAN: I think I can foresee the result of, this argument—the immense numbers of the respective societies at stake, and their merits, their enthusiasms, their zeal, and so on. We should soon be embarking on the whole merits.

Mr. J. JONES: Would it be in Order for those of us who have friendly societies in our constituencies to quote the names of our own constituents who have sent us letters of protest against this particular Clause?

The CHAIRMAN: I think there will be ample opportunity for that when we get to other Amendments.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): I am bound to resist the proposal which has been put before the Committee, and I submit that there has really been no attempt to show any valid reasons why this Clause should be postponed. We are not dealing here with an ordinary Amendment
of the Insurance Act; we are dealing with an Economy Bill. It is well known we cannot fix the date for the opening of the Budget until we have disposed of our business in connection with the Economy Bill. It has been cynically—I will not say cynically, but frankly admitted by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment that the sole object of it is to give them time to go into the country and dig out fresh arguments and fresh reasons for opposing every sentence, every line and every word of the Clause. That certainly may strengthen their efforts in endeavouring to delay the passage of this Measure, but I submit that it is not really a valid reason why you should put this Clause behind the other Clauses in the Bill. I quite agree this is an important Clause, and we may have to take some little time to discuss it. Certainly I am prepared to sacrifice my health in endeavouring to meet any new arguments that may be adduced. As for concessions, I have had other Measures pass through this House, and it has been sometimes possible to meet new arguments addressed to me, and to make concessions. I have no reason to suppose that if on this Bill suggestions are put forward which do not affect vital matters, I am not likely to do again what I have done before. I think I can do that as well to-night, or even in the small hours of to-morrow morning, as I could do it after Easter, and, therefore, I beg to ask the Committee to resist this proposal.

Mr. THOMAS: I am quite sure there is no Member on any side of the Committee who desires to kill the right hon. Gentleman's Measure. It is quite true he has indicated that he is prepared to sacrifice his health, in common with the health of those whom he sacrifices. At the same time, I do take exception when the Minister says that this is not an Insurance Bill, that this is not amending the Insurance Act, but that this is an Economy Bill.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Not an ordinary Insurance Bill.

Mr. THOMAS: I agree. It is an extraordinary Insurance Bill. That is exactly the ground on which we are opposing it. It is because it is so extraordinary that we say it is not sufficient merely to plead
that this is an Economy Bill. The Clause we are now debating vitally affects 15,000,000 insured persons. We can call it what we like. They, and those responsible, will call it by a very short name, and because of that I ask the House to support the Amendment.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Minister said that this is an Economy Bill. He cannot have read Clause 7, which says:
This Part of this Act may be cited as the National Health Insurance Act, 1926.
I think an additional reason for postponing the Clause is to give the right hon. Gentleman time to read his own Bill. He will find that the Bill is not an Economy Bill, but, according to his own draftsmen, it is to be cited as the "National Health Insurance Act, 1926,"and so it is—a very vital part. I know at this stage I cannot discuss the merits, but undoubtedly it is something more than an Economy Bill. It vitally affects the whole working of the Insurance Act, so much so that even in this particular Clause the Government have not had time to think out all the ramifications and the effects it will have, but are going to leave it to future Regulations.

The CHAIRMAN: That, I think, would be a reason for not getting sooner to Clause 7, and the result of carrying this Amendment would be that we should get sooner to Clause 7.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That point may be a good one. At the same time, may I respectfully suggest that I am entirely on the question of time now? I am answering an argument given by the Minister, and if it be in order for a Minister to advance an argument, it must be in order to reply to it. But may I point out this to the Committee and to the Minister? There is no doubt at all that this is a question which the societies ought to have time to consider. That is reasonable in itself. It is affecting 15,000,000 people, and the approved societies, who are devoted entirely to the working out of the law of the land, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, have had no time up to the present to consider it. It is not a question of whether, on merits, you ought to add this to the Bill. It is a question of whether an opportunity ought not to be given to those who are vitally affected, and know more about the matter even than the
Minister himself, because they are devoting the whole of their time to it, whereas he is only occasionally attending to it, because he has so much other work to do—it is a question of whether an opportunity ought not to be given to them not only to consider this proposition, but to consider the implications of the report of the Royal Commission. There is a society called the Hearts of Oak, which has already met and rejected it, but it is the only society which has ha d the opportunity so far. It is a very considerable society numbering 400,000 to 500,000 members. But the largest societies of all are to meet next week. They will be considering this. Is it not fair, before the Minister proceeds with the Bill, to give them an opportunity to consider this, and the House of Commons an opportunity to consider what their opinion is?
This House of Commons is now adjudicating upon a proposition which was never before it at the last Election. It is a new change—a change which the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself did not anticipate last year. It is something which came quite suddenly, and surely those who are vitally affected ought to have a full opportunity of discussing it? Why does the Minister persist in proceeding with it, when he knows perfectly well that these Societies are on the point of considering it? There will be next week delegates drawn from 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 insured persons in this country. It will be the one subject for discussion and consideration. I venture to say there will not be a speech delivered there that will not concentrate upon this particular proposition. There will be delegates from every part of the country. They may have valuable suggestions. The Minister says he is perfectly ready to sit into the early hours to-morrow morning. There is no doubt that the strongest argument upon which he is depending is his majority. That is his argument Really, is it fair to the Committee of the House of Commons? They have no time to consult their constituents. There is not a Member of this House who has not got in his constituency thousands and tens of thousands of these poor people whose interests are affected vitally by this provision. Are they not to have any opportunity of communicating?
Communications are beginning to pour in, but none of us have opportunities of
coming into contact with the people who are organising in our constituencies questions of health, and how the people can be kept alive and their families kept in times of illness. Are we not to have an opportunity, above all, of hearing what suggestions they have to make? They may take the view—though, honestly, I do not believe they will—but they might conceivably take the view, "Very well, we are prepared to make some concession to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in these circumstances, but, in our opinion, certain things ought to be done."Who could give us better advice and counsel on that subject than these great organised societies who have devoted to this subject, and this subject alone, every day of their lives, and know exactly what should he done? "No,"the Minister says, "I must get your cash, and I must get it before Easter. I am not going to wait."Why? Because he knows perfecly well next week there will be a chorus of condemnation, and he wants his Bill before Members, not on this side, but on that side, have been told by their constituents that there will be a most strenuous resistance on the part of tens of thousands to the confiscatory proposals of this Bill.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to support the proposal to postpone this Clause, and desire to put one or two reasons why it should be done. I understand that in the Ministry of Health there is what is known as the Consultative Council, and that Council is drawn from approved societies of all kinds. I should like to know whether the Consultative Council, by the very nature of its name, has been consulted? It ought to have been consulted, of course, and I think we ought to know from the Minister before we proceed as to what has transpired in that connection. Then there is a very strong point in favour of postpining this Clause because this Clause stands entirely on its own, and the Bill could become law, and would be workable in fact, without Clause 1 at all. The Minister described this Bill as an Economy Bill. The correct description ought to be that Clause 1 is an Economy Bill, and the other part is an Insurance Bill. We are very much annoyed at the way this Bill is being rushed by the Government. It is unfair to the approved societies, and this Bill, in fact, from the very beginning,
was intended to be rushed. I hope to prove my case. As soon as the Government came into office, in November, 1924, they appointed an Actuarial Committee to inquire into this subject, and there are traces of this Bill all along the line from the day the Government came into office.

The CHAIRMAN: The question before the Committee is that Clause 1 be postponed, and not why other Clauses should be postponed.

Mr. DAVIES: The question I ask is, have the Consultative Council been consulted? I understand that yesterday all the approved societies' representatives in the country met in London. I am not sure whether they were called together by the Minister, but I think it is fair that we should know from the Minister the attitude of these approved societies towards Clause 1.

Mr. MACKINDER: I suggest that if the Government had been introducing a Bill which would have the effect of disturbing the Engineering and Shipbuilding Employers' Federation, and that it eras known that the federation was to have a meeting shortly afterwards, the Bill would not be introduced until that employers' organisation had had an opportunity of considering its terms and provisions. The mining situation is a very good parallel. A Bill may have to be introduced to deal with that, but that Bill will not be introduced until employers and workpeople have had the opportunity of discussing the Report of the Commission. For many years I administered the National Health Insurance Act, and I have a good idea as to what the members of the approved societies will feel about this matter, and when it is reported to the representatives of these millions of people that the Government contemplate taking certain action I can well imagine the indignation that will he expressed, and rightly expressed, by the members of those societies, who will say the Government are proceeding before they have had an opportunity of considering the proposals. The Minister has said he may make concessions. I put it to the Committee that the only concessions which will he worth making are those asked for by the approved societies. Some of its here have administered the
Act, and some of us have received benefit under the Act, but the real person to be considered is the member of an approved society, and the Minister cannot make concessions to Members of Parliament which will be anything like as valuable as those which the members of approved societies wish for themselves. Therefore I put it to the Committee that the consideration of Clause 1 ought to be deferred until after the Easter holidays, until after the workpeople and the members of the societies have had an oppotunity of considering, not only the Economy Bill, but the Report of the Royal Commission, and I hope the Minister will give consideration to that point of view. He will make concessions, I think, if he can make concessions which will not lose him any money, but I do urge that the only concessions which will be desirable are those asked for by the representatives of the approved societies after they have carefully deliberated about the matter and asked their spokesmen, in any part of the House, to represent their views.

Sir JOHN SIMON: Up to the present there really has been no answer to the request that this Clause should be postponed, except the silent threat of the majority behind the Treasury Bench. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) asked the Minister of Health a question, the answer to which may have something to do with it, but he did not reply.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I am going to answer it.

Sir J. SIMON: I gather that a. more zealous subordinate may answer it for him. It really is desirable to know to what extent it can be said that the friendly societies, so far as they are represented on the Consultative Committee, have expressed a view on the Clause. I am not asking what their view was, but only asking to what extent it is correct to suggest that the friendly societies have really had their views collected and expressed. It is most material to know that, but that very direct question has not been answered. In the second place, may I point out to such members of the Conservative majority as are present to listen to this argument, and are
not merely coming in to vote, that really the case for postponement here is very much stronger than such cases usually are. It is quite true that people often put down a Motion to postpone a Clause, without having any very good arguments as to why the Clause should be postponed; but in the present instance there are two or three admitted facts which should be presented to the Committee. First of all, it is an admitted fact that we are not going to try to carry all these Clauses before the Easter Adjournment. It is not the case, therefore, that the effect of this proposed postponement will be that other Clauses cannot be taken, or that time will lie wasted as regards the Debates which, sooner or later, must take place on this Clause. We have got to take something before Easter, and we have got to leave something else to be dealt with after Easter and the question is a purely practical one of whether it is not desirable to take something else to-night in place of this Clause.
In the second place, may I point out that, if we are to judge by precedents, the law relating to national health insurance has to a very large extent been framed in consultation with and in the light of the known views of the great friendly societies. I do not say they can dictate to the House of Commons, for in is perfectly correct that we have the Bill in our charge even after we know what they have to say, but it is going contrary to the course which every Government has pursued hitherto in connection with national health insurance to say, "We will legislate first and hear what you have to say afterwards."
I am an old enough Member of this House to remember what a, very, very difficult situation was created when it was mistakenly supposed in 1911 that the National Insurance Bill was going to be brought before Parliament and carried without sufficient consultation with the friendly societies. It produced an amount of misunderstanding and an amount of resistance over a Bill which we have never seen in this generation. In face of those two facts, first, that we can take only a small portion of the whole Committee stage before Easter, and, second, that this particular Clause is just one of those Clauses which have always been the subject of discussion
with friendly societies, it is most foolish to say, "I mean to use my majority "—with the threat that if hon. Members keep up the argument too long, they will lose some of their holidays—"and when I have done I will snap my fingers at the friendly societies."I suggest that we have here a case on its merits for the postponement of the discussion of this particular Clause which has not been met, and which cannot be met, unless, indeed, the Minister responsible can get up and say he has already got the views of these approved societies, and that, consequently, their meeting next week does not affect him at all. For these practical reasons I say to hon. Members on the other side, "It is all very well to use your majority, but really there is a real reason why this should be postponed,"and no answer, as it seems to me, has yet been given to that argument.

Mr. MELLER: I have listened very carefully to two of the suggestions from hon. Members opposite in favour of the postponement of this Clause, and am bound to say that I am impressed with them. I am impressed for this reason, that there is abroad amongst the representatives of the insured people an idea that this Bill, certainly as regards the first two Clauses, which affect approved societies and insured people—an idea that there has been sharp practice on the part of the Government. I am going to say at once that I acquit the Minister of any sharp practice in the matter. I believe that his desire is to get on with these two Clauses, because the time will be required after Easter for other things, and it is necessary that the contentious part of the Bill should be got out of the way now if possible; but if the Minister is satisfied that the approved societies, after having had full opportunity to consider the merits and the demerits of the Report of the Royal Commission, and what effect these proposals will have upon the funds and the future of the societies, will come to the conclusion that they will support him, then it seems to me there may be no harm done by adopting the suggestion for the postponement of the Clause until after Easter, and for taking the less contentious parts of the Bill now. Whatever may happen to-day with respect to these two Clauses, whether they be passed or
rejected, it will leave a very unpleasant taste in the mouths of those who are administering approved societies.
Although the Consultative Council have been called together, as far as I know they were only called together after the Bill was in print, and the Royal Commission's Report was not discussed with them except in so far as its provisions were outlined to them and the proposals of the Government with regard to its recommendations were set before them; but the whale thing came as a bolt from the clouds, and they had not had the opportunity then, and have had very little opportunity since, of discussing the Report of the Royal Commission. In the short time available, no one has had time to consider the Report, to study it, to read between the lines and understand it, and to come to proper conclusions on its recommendations. Therefore, I would ask the Minister whether he cannot see his way either to give us some indication as to the line he proposes to take upon the Amendments to Clauses 1 and 2, or to accept what I believe is a very reasonable suggestion from the other side, not put forward altogether, I think, by some hon. Members opposite, with the idea of destroying the proposal. I do believe that if the Minister is prepared to argue with the societies and to give them full time for consideration they will, as on all previous occasions, come down on the side of reasonable and sane action.

Mr. SEXTON: In pleading with the Minister to accept this proposal for postponement, I would like to put my own case before him. My own men, numbering 400,000, have asked me to meet them during Easter, to consult with them as to how these proposals will affect them. How can I say or do anything if these Clauses are passed to-night? There is a vital issue at stake. They regard this Bill as a breach of faith, and they honestly think they are being deprived of something which they were led to believe would exist for all time.

The CHAIRMAN: This is a discussion on the merits of the Bill, and the Minister would not be in order in replying to it.

Mr. SEXTON: I am not concerned with the merits of the Bill—if it has any—or its demerits, but I say the action of the Government in suddenly plunging upon this course without any explanation, and with little opportunity for discussing the effects of their proposals, is—well, I do not like to say it, but it savours to me of a piece of atrocious political hooliganism.

The CHAIRMAN: Obviously the hon. Member is now considering either the merits or the demerits of the Bill, but what we are discussing is the question of the postponement of this Clause.

Mr. SEXTON: I have endeavoured to obey your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but it is very difficult to sit quietly and to keep coal under the circumstances, when we know that we are to be suddenly bludgeoned and garrotted. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shanghaied !"] "Shanghaied"is a fool to it. I know something about being Shanghaied. I have been Shanghaied myself. It is not oily hooliganism; it is something much worse. If the right hon. Gentleman and his friends persist in this kind of thing, they will ultimately arrive at their political Tyburn.

Mr. SHEPHERD: I desire to protest against the statement of the Minister of Health when he said that we on this side merely wished to postpone this Clause, in order that we might go to our constituencies and do propaganda upon it. I think that was his remark; that certainly was the implication I received. I am perfectly certain that there is no need for any propaganda by us in this matter. As a matter of fact, there is no need for it, because everyone is coming to see us and doing propaganda work upon us. I think in the course of the next few days I am meeting, I think, no less than eight approved societies in my constituency to receive from them their protest and their indignation. I could give the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Gentlemen opposite the names of the representatives of these societies if they wish—

The CHAIRMAN: That would not be in order.

Mr. SHEPHERD: Then I will be able to give them later. I do, however, wish strongly to protest against, as it seems to me, the imputations made where not in
accordance with the fact. There is at least one Member on the Government Benches who has had the courage to state his conviction, namely, that there is going to be a grave injustice done to at least 15.000,000 insured people—

Mr. MELLER: I do not know that I put it like that. I would leave an observation like that for a later occasion, if necessary.

Mr. SHEPHERD: I am sorry if I have somewhat misrepresented the hon. Gentleman. I am not quite used to the acoustics of this place, and perhaps did not quite hear what the hon. Gentleman said. I do hope, however, that everyone here will fully realise exactly what we are doing in this matter. This is of tremendous import to 15,000,000 insured people. These are looking upon this matter to a certain degree with desperation, because they see all sorts of things which they have been hoping for which are about to slip from their grasp—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is going beyond the scope of the Amendment.

Mr. BRIANT: Before we vote, I should like an answer from the right hon. Gentleman or from the Parliamentary Secretary very definitely as to whether they considered the approved societies need not be consulted, or whether the approved societies should express their opinion up an the Bill? If the first was the line taken by the Government, they are responsible for it; if, on the other hand, they believe that 15,000,000 persons, through their representatives, should be allowed to express their opinion, they can only support the Amendment proposed by my hon. and learned Friend. The House has sometimes to deal with certain interests which are going to be created. The House, quite rightly in these cases, at all events sometimes, say, "We cannot consult the interests concerned, because we have to make a decision ourselves on the point."But that is not the case here. What we are now formulating is a proposal to take away what has already been given. This is an entirely new principle. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary sat with me for years on an insurance committee and will appreciate the point I am putting forward. Here is a question affecting many millions of people. Are the Government going to rush this
through? Are they going to give no opportunities to the approved societies to say anything in the matter? If the Government do not at the outset handle this matter rightly, the longer it goes on, and the longer the approved societies have the matter before them, the more trouble there will be for the Government in the future. On the ground of public interest is it wise to upset the approved societies which have got to work the Act; to do this thing suddenly, to rush it through without giving them any opportunity to discuss the details? I do not know exactly what their view of such action will be, though I think I can guess it. It is in the interest of the smooth working of the Act that I should suggest we should postpone this Clause, and not rush it through, as the Government seem inclined to do relying upon their supporters to give them the requisite majority.

Sir K. WOOD: In the first place, may I say that I certainly remember sitting with the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. Briant) on the Insurance Committee to which he refers, and joining with him in endeavouring to prevent the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) from attempting to raid the sinking fund. I do not—

The CHAIRMAN: I do not know that I can allow that to pass, otherwise the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs will be entitled to reply.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: On a. point of Order. The statement having been made and repeated, would I be in order in saying that there is not a word of truth in the statement made by my hon. Friend?

The CHAIRMAN: I think having allowed one sentence to each hon. Member, we will leave it at that.

Sir K. WOOD: May I in the first place say that this proposal has been before the approved societies for three weeks. Secondly, they were given as much information as has been given in connection with any proposal that has been before this House for some time. There was an actuarial report, and there was an exposition of the Clauses in the Bill.
So far as explanations were concerned they were fully given. It has been put forward this afternoon in Committee that no consultations have taken place with the approved societies, that no conversations have taken place. That is quite untrue. When in 1911 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs brought in his Bill he had to consult the various societies up and down the country. Under the Act of 1911 he adopted a, method by which the Minister of Health could from time to time consult with and have the benefit of the advice of the societies up and down the country. To this end he formed a Consultative Council.
Immediately the present Bill was introduced my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health called together the Consultative Council representing all the approved societies in the country. That meeting was held, I believe, on the very day when the text of the Bill was available to Members of this House. My right hon. Friend made a statement to that gathering and explained at considerable length the provisions of the Bill. The members of the Consultative Council came to certain conclusions about the proposals. Having considered them at length, carefully and seriously, they were willing and able to come to the conclusion, on that day, as to what they considered the merits of the Bill. [An HON. MEMBERS: "What were the conclusions?"] I am going to say. There are two important proposals in the Measure contained in the first and second Clauses. So far as the second Clause is concerned, the Consultative Council saw no objection to it. So far as the proposals contained in Clause 1 are concerned, by a majority of 28 to six they declared they were not prepared to accept it. No one can this afternoon say that there has been no consultation. There has been the fullest consultation. There has been the consultation much on the lines as laid down by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs himself.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Through a nominated committee!

Sir K. WOOD: The committee is one which consists of the representatives of all types of societies up and down the
country. If I were to mention their names I think, at any rate, there would be no question about it being a committee—

Mr. MACKINDER: What about the approved member, who matters more than anybody else? He has not had an opportunity of getting to know what are the provisions.

Sir K. WOOD: With great respect that is not so. This matter was fully debated in the House in 1911, and it was decided that the most convenient method of reaching the 15,000,000 was to have this Advisory Council, and from time to time to consult it. They have been consulted.

Mr. MACKINDER: Three weeks!

Sir K. WOOD: It is no good the hon. Member saying "three weeks,"because the Consultative Council considered themselves sufficiently conversant with the matter to deal with it on the day to which I have referred. It is no answer to ask: "What about the three weeks?"By a majority of 28 to 6, they decided that they could not agree with the proposal. Therefore it is no justification for anyone to say this afternoon that a proper competent authority has not been consulted so far as this Bill is concerned. That is the point that I have to make so far as the postponement of this Clause is concerned. Secondly, I would remind the House that the Bill is now just in its Committee stage, and between now and the Report stage any proposals or any suggestions from any of the annual conferences will receive full consideration by my right hon. Friend—that is proposals that are not intended to destroy the vital principle of the alterations suggested. Anything, I say, that is put forward by the societies will receive full consideration. Obviously that is the right step to take. It can be done. It will be done. There is, therefore, no possible grounds for saying that any—

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Before the Parliamentary Secretary leaves the question of the Consultative Council, is it not the fact that members of the Consultative Council were opposed to this Bill, and asked the Minister for time to consult the approved societies? Did they not press him not to introduce the Bill imme-
diately but to give them time to consult the approved societies before anything was done?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir; we had no such request. So far as my right hon. Friend and myself are concerned, the statement of the right hon. Gentleman is not correct. What happened is as I have detailed it. My right hon. Friend and myself retired from the meeting of the Consultative Council to which I have referred, and the council said they would consider the matter. My right hon. Friend asked if it would be necessary to see himself or myself again, and the members of the Consultative Council said it would not be necessary.

Mr. THOMAS: Will he say that they did not meet the Minister yesterday and make this request?

Sir K. WOOD: No.

5.0. P.M.

Mr. THOMAS: Was it not proved that the only body who had an opportunity of representing the whole of the approved societies waited upon the Minister of Health, and made the request as embodied in the proposal? You did not meet the deputation yesterday?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No.

Sir K. WOOD: Where the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen get these facts from, I do not know. My right hon. Friend met no such body yesterday, nor at any other time. These suspicious Gentlemen opposite will perhaps allow me to explain. The Consultative Council felt quite competent to deal with proposals that we made at the first meeting; they occupied a day in considering them, and they gave their decision as I have indicated. We have had no meeting since, and my right hon. Friend has not received any deputation since from the approved societies.

Mr. HARNEY: Is it not a fact that the Consultative Council was only approached on the day that the Economy Bill was introduced? Is it not also a fact that they were told that that was a confidential meeting, that they said they wanted an opportunity to put the matter before the approved societies, and that they were told the thing should be done confidentially that day?

Sir K. WOOD: No, the hon. and learned Member is quite incorrect in all those suggestions. What my right hon. Friend did say was, "I am taking the very first opportunity I can to consult with you this day. I could not call you before, because the Bill would not be available to Members of the House of Commons."He took the view that it would not be proper as Minister to reveal to them proposals which had not yet been laid before the House of Commons. I was present, and I know exactly what took place.

Mr. HARNEY: The hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I understand the function of the Consultative Council is that there should be a body who should be given the opportunity of laying suggestions and new proposals before the approved societies. Is it a fact that this was brought before the Consultative Council at a time and in circumstances that precluded them from carrying out their functions and laying them before the approved societies?

Sir K. WOOD: No. That suggestion is perfectly untrue. The functions of the Consultative Council are not to take proposals from the Minister to the approved societies and to consult them and come back to the Minister, but to receive suggestions from the Minister or make suggestions themselves in their capacity as representatives of the insured persons of the country. That is the statutory duty as laid down by the Act of 1911. All that was said to them was that as we were meeting that morning and Members of the House of Commons might not receive the draft of the Bill until 11 or 12 o'clock, we desired until the Bill was public property—[HON. MEMBERS: "oh, oh!"]—But there is not the slightest vestige of ground for saying that this was a confidential meeting and that they were not in a position to consider the proposals made to them. The first proposals were accepted, and with regard to the second proposals, by a majority, they intimated that they were not prepared to accept them. There is not, therefore, the slightest ground for saying that this Clause ought to be postponed on the ground that the appropriate body has not been consulted. They have been consulted, and they considered it and they have given their decision. All we
have to deal with this afternoon is the charge—made very recklessly—that no consultation has taken place. It is perfectly untrue. They have been consulted and they have given their decision. Therefore, there is no proper reason why this Clause should be postponed. If in the conferences up and down the country that will shortly take place any practical suggestions are put before my right hon. Friend, we shall he glad to consider them and can deal with them at other stages of the Bill.

Mr. THOMAS: I must confess I have never heard a Minister so twist the facts. I am going to speak quite as plainly, because I know just as much about what took place as he does. First, he says the appropriate, body, namely, the Consultative Council, were consulted, and they were the only body that ought to have been consulted. Let us see what took place. On the morning that the Bill was to be introduced into this House the Minister called them together, and submitted the proposals for the first time. They are the representatives of 15,000,000 insured persons. Their title is the Consultative Committee to the Minister of Health. Does the Minister deny that the primary function of this body, not only since his term of office, but in the term of every previous Minister, has been that on insurance matters they have not only been consulted before this House was consulted, but they have been asked to give assistance before the House knew anything about it? When we took office we were faced immediately with a crisis with the doctors. We found ourselves landed with a 3s. charge on the Treasury. My right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) suggested to the Minister of Health (Mr. Wheatley) that he himself should consult those responsible — the Consultative Council—and ask them whether they would relieve the Treasury of the obligation. We explained the Government's difficulty, and they promptly took over the liability. But they were consulted. We did not go to them and say, "This is a Bill; you can take it, or leave it."We did not go to them and say, "We have an absolute majority, no matter what you do, but for courtesy we are consulting you."We said, "You are the consultative body and the people who
know this job; can you help us? "And they did help us.
Compare that with what you have just heard from the Minister. How diplomatically he climbs over their decisions. He himself says they are the most representative body. He himself says they are the people who speak with authority. He has told you they know all about it and that they decided to agree to one Resolution and on the other, well, by 28 to six they were not quite so definite. That is the way he puts it. Now I will put to him what happened. The second Resolution, he knows perfectly well, has nothing to do with this Debate. No. 2 Resolution has nothing to do with the Amendment. You know it and there was no need to introduce it. It was the medical benefits alone, and he knows it. Therefore, the Resolution that they passed on the Clause that we are now discussing was a wholesale condemnation of these proposals. Then he says, "by a majority."Very well; the majority, taking his figures, is 28 to six. If they are the most representative body, according to his own phrase, and the people who know and, as he says, who are entrusted with responsibility, what right have you to come down this afternoon and place before the House of Commons a Bill which these people say is bad? This Bill goes much beyond that. Fifteen million people—and it is estimated that at least 3,000,000 to 4,000,000 will be meeting in the Easter conferences in the next few days ! When we trade union leaders do something, and it does not always met with approbation, the first thing you hurl at us is, "Why don't you consult your people?"We hear frequently the phrase, "What about the rank and file?"Now we are pleading for the rank and file. Sometimes you want a ballot. Will you take one on this?
Let us come to the other practical side of it. After all, the trade unions, the friendly societies and I he approved societies can only spend money from their administration funds. The hon. Gentleman has been on deputations with me to plead that it was not quite enough. They can only spend this money. Very well, that being so, surely the conference could not be called in a day. Three weeks, he says, this has been before the country. The railway men affected reside in Scotland, England and Wales. The delegates they have to elect have to be elected or
they will not be representative. With all this knowledge of geography, the hon. Gentleman says three weeks was enough for them to be consulted. I put it quite definitely that it is not only not fair, that it is not only not giving a chance, but that he himself perfectly well knows that the explanation or excuse he gave that it is only one stage of the Bill will not hold water. If he believes that after an opportunity has been given to consult these societies, and the Government are prepared to take their view, what is the difficulty about delaying the matter? The Prime Minister has announced to-day that when this House re-assembles we are going straight back into Committee on this Bill. If at that time the societies have come to a decision, then the Parliamentary Secretary will say, "Yes, but we have passed that stage of the Bill."When the Report stage is reached and we move an Amendment we shall be told, "This will seriously interfere with the Budget proposals,"and so the Government will go on, not relying upon the arguments of the case, but upon the number of hon. Members who will probably walk into the Lobby on that occasion. I would like to say that when they consult their constituencies on this question they will get quite another view placed before them.

Mr. MACKINDER: We have just been told that if in conference the approved societies make any recommendations, they can be dealt with on the further stages of the Bill. I want to ask you, Mr. Chairman, if a decision is arrived at on the Committee stage of this Bill, and further recommendations are brought in afterwards which increase the charge imposed by this Bill, would they be in order on the Report stage?

The CHAIRMAN: No; and they would not be in order on the Committee stage either.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I think if any further arguments were needed in favour of postponing this Clause, they have been supplied by the explanation given by the Minister himself. Approved societies do not usually do their business in the way indicated by the Parliamentary Secretary because they must have some consultation with their members, and I cannot believe that any committee formed to confer with the Government in regard
to this scheme would ever think of committing the members of these societies to so drastic a step as that which is contemplated by this Bill. The Government have absolutely no mandate for the introduction of a Measure such as this which has never been placed before the country. The Parliamentary Secretary has told us that this proposal has been before the members of the approved societies for three weeks, but you could not hatch a clutch of eggs in three weeks and yet the Government produce a Bill like this. The idea that this matter can be adequately discussed in the three weeks in which the Bill has been before the country has no reality in fact whatever. The mandate of the country does not extend to economy in this direction. The supporters of the Government may claim that they have a mandate to introduce measures of economy and on that we are all agreed. They may have a mandate to put into operation certain proposals for economy in public expenditure, but there is no economy in this proposal. The economy suggested by the Government is of the meanest and most despicable kind.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now entering into the merits of the question.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I was saying that as an additional argument why we should have more time for discussion. It seems to me that from every point of view mere justice demands that there should be a postponement of Clause 1 of this Bill. Added weight has been given to this contention by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), who has completely demolished the case for the Bill put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health. Unless the case made out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby is answered, I cannot believe that any hon. Member on the other side dare go back to his constituents and meet the members of the approved societies and defend the passage of this Bill. For these reasons I support the postponement of the discussion of this Clause, and I hope the House will carry this Amendment.

Sir J. SIMON: I cannot believe that the account given by the Parliamentary Secretary of the position of this matter is entirely accurate, and I know it is
inaccurate in one particular in which I am in a position to check his statement. The hon. Member explained that he had consulted this body which he spoke of as being created under the Act of 1911. I do not think the Act of 1911 contained any such Clause as the one which he says set up this Committee. The Act of 1911 contains no Clause giving power to set up such a committee, and when the Parliamentary Secretary was referring to this committee he was quite wrong in saying it was set up under the Act of 1911.

Sir K. WOOD: I remember the occasion perfectly well, because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) set up the first committee.

Sir J. SIMON: There is no Section of the Act referred to which gave power to set up this committee at all. A purely advisory committee was constituted, but it is inaccurate to say that it was created by a Section of the Act of 1911, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs took very good care to have effective consultation with the approved societies, although it was not done by a statutory enactment.

Sir K. WOOD: I am advised that Section 58 of the Act of 1911 gives power for a consultative council to be set up.

Sir J. SIMON: Then I am wrong. What is quite certain is that the Consultative Council in fact is created under the Act of 1919, and an Order in Council was made under it. There is presumably an Order in Council made for this particular purpose. I want to know, if there is an Order in Council passed to create this consultative council, does it not make provision as to what it is that is really to be put before that body? Is it the case that the Order is being properly carried out if you present to that body a scheme of legislation which you are going to introduce, and ask them to express their view upon it I cannot believe that that was the intention or spirit of the Order in Council. Probably the Parliamentary Secretary has heard of the well-known French story of the lady who went into her farmyard, and told her fowls that she wished to consult them as to whether they would like to be roasted or boiled, when the leading fowl replied that he and his friends did not want either. The lady
retorted, "My dear fowl, you are wandering from the point."When the Government used this Consultative Council, is it the case that they never put before it proposals which the Government had decided upon without getting any previous information, and without making themselves acquainted with the views of the friendly societies?

Mr. LAWSON: I was very much interested in the case put by the Parliamentary Secretary with the account he gave of his dealings with the Consultative Committee. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) completely demolished that case. There is one thing, however, which the hon. Gentleman did not say, and it is that the-Committee were so dissatisfied that they held further discussions, and last night the Minister received a telegram from a joint body representing practically 14,000,000 people who come under the Insurance Act. I ask the Minister of Health if he received a telegram last night from a joint committee representing something like 14,000,000 people who come under the Insurance Act, asking that he should postpone the discussion of this Bill until they had had an opportunity of discussing the matter with the members of their societies during the week-end? I also want to know, if the right hon. Gentleman received that telegram, what was his answer to it. I understood the Parliamentary Secretary's case was that the Government had discussed these matters with the committee representing the contributors and they could not get any further. On this point I think we are entitled to a straight answer. Did the right hon. Gentleman receive such a telegram, and if so what was his answer to it? The telegram definitely asked that the Government should postpone the discussion of this Clause until the members of the approved societies had had an opportunity of discussing it.

HON. MEMBERS: Answer !

The CHAIRMAN: It is sometimes in my power to make hon. Members sit down, but it is not in my power to make them rise.

Mr. THOMAS: I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
We have reached a stage at which we should move to report Progress. After all, we are discussing a very simple and straightforward Amendment. Grounds have been put forward, and we have heard from the Minister that the reason why this Amendment is resisted is because every opportunity has already been given. A plain, specific question has now been put by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), to this effect: Is it true that the Minister himself received a definite, telegram to the effect indicated, and what was the answer? Surely, that is a simple, straightforward question, and one that ought to be answered. If my right hon. Friend feels that he ought not to answer, or if he does not intend to answer, I feel that there is no other alternative than to move to report Progress.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no objection at all to answering the question, but I thought, as I saw that a number of hon. Members opposite were desirous of putting some further considerations, I might postpone my answer. Since the right hon. Gentleman feels

that an answer is necessary now. I will give it. I did not receive any such telegram last night. I did receive a telegram this morning. A telegram, which came while I was in attendance at the Cabinet, was opened by my private Secretary, but there was nothing in the telegram to show that it came from anyone who represented 14,000,000 people. The effect of the telegram was to ask that I should receive a deputation; but, unfortunately, owing to the fact that I was engaged at the Cabinet until a late hour, by the time I got the telegram it was no longer possible for me to receive a deputation. That is my answer to the hon. Member's question.

Mr. THOMAS: That being so, I think it is the strongest possible ground for this Motion. The issue is now boiled down to much narrower limits. I do not blame my right hon. Friend now; he was too busy; he was engaged in other matters—

Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 124; Noes, 227.

Division No. 107.]
AYES.
[5.50 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Groves, T.
Naylor, T. E.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro)
Grundy, T. W.
Oliver, George Harold


Ammon, Charles George
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Palln, John Henry


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Paling, W.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hardle, George D.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Barnes, A.
Harney, E. A.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Barr, J.
Harris, Percy A.
Potts, John S.


Batey, Joseph
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hayday, Arthur
Riley, Ben


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hayes, John Henry
Robinson, W.C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Briant, Frank
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Rose, Frank H.


Broad, F. A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sexton, James


Bromfield, William
Hirst, G. H.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bromley, J.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hore-Balisha, Leslie
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Cape, Thomas
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Sitch, Charles H.


Charleton, H. C.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smillie, Robert


Clowes, S.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Campton, Joseph
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Snell, Harry


Cove, W. G.
Kelly, W. T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Dalton, Hugh
Kennedy, T.
Stamford, T. W.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stephen, Campbell


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, D.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Day, Colonel Harry
Lansbury, George
Taylor, R. A.


Dennison, R.
Lawson, John James
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby).


Duncan, C.
Lee, F.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Dunnico, H.
Livingstone, A. M.
Thurtle, E.


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Lowth, T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Gibbins, Joseph
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Gillett, George M.
Mackinder, W.
Varley, Frank B.


Gosling, Harry
March, S.
Viant, S. P.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Maxton, James
Wallhead, Richard C.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morris, R. H.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)



Westwood, J.
Williams, T. (York, Don valley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES —


Whiteley, W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Warne.


Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)



Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Wright, W.



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Albery, Irving James
Gadle, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.Derby)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Moore Sir Newton J.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Gee, Captain R.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Colonel J.C. T.


Atkinson, C.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Balniel, Lord
Goff, Sir Park
Murchison, C. K.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Grace, John
Nelson, Sir Frank


Barnett, Major Sir R.
Grant, J. A.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W.G. (Ptrat'ld.)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Grotrian, H. Brent
Nuttall, Ellis


Bennett, A. J.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Berry, Sir George
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Birchail, Major J. Dearman
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Pilcher, G.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pilditch, sir Philip


Blundell, F. N.
Harney, E. A.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Boothby, R. J. G.
Haslam, Henry C.
Radford, E. A.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hawke, John Anthony
Raine, W.


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Ramsden, E.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Remnant, Sir James


Brass, Captain W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Rentoul, G. S.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Briscoe, Richard George
Hannessy, Major J. R. G.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hills, Major John Waller
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St.Marylebone)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Salmon, Major I.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bullock, Captain M.
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Burman, J. B.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sandon, Lord


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Shepperson, E. W.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Skelton, A. N.


Campbell, E. T.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Huntingfield, Lord
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Chapman, Sir S.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Charterls, Brigadier-General J.
Jacob, A. E.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Kidd, J. (Linilthgow)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Couper, J. B.
Lamb, J. Q.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Lister Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Loder, J. de V.
Templeton, W. P.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Looker, Herbert William
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Lord, Walter Greaves.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Lougher, L.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Dalkeith, Earl of
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Macintyre, Ian
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Dawson, Sir Philip
McLean, Major A.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Macmillan, Captain H.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Wells, S. R.


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Macquisten, F. A.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D, Steel
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.- M.)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Everard, W. Lindsay
Malone, Major P. B.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Wise, Sir Fredric


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Wolmer, Viscount


Fermoy, Lord
Meller, R. J.
Womersley, W. J,


Fielden, E. B.
Merriman, F. B.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgewater)




Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C. 
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Major Cope and Captain Margeason.


Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

Question again proposed, "That the Clause be postponed."

Mr. THURTLE: It is quite clear, from what the Parliamentary Secretary said, that there has been no consultation in any real sense of the ward with the interests concerned. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman understands by consultation, but we on this side of the Committee, who have some conception of democracy, understand, in a case of this sort, that consultation means consultation with the members themselves who are affected. We do not regard an eleventh-hour secret conclave with this Consultative Council as being anything in the nature of real consultation. I am astonished at the attitude of the Government in regard to this matter, because it is contrary to their general attitude in regard to legislation. I believe the basis upon which the Government seek to frame all their legislation is that of "Peace in our time."That doctrine presupposes legislation by agreement so far as is possible, and legislation by agreement inevitably involves consultation. It is upon the basis of consulting the interests affected that the Government are framing, very largely, their legislative programme.
If I may give an illustration of that, I would take the question of the coal problem. There it is quite clear that the Government contemplate, in the near future, legislation of some sort or another, but it is equally clear that they are not going to bring that legislation into the House until they have had the fullest and most complete consultation with the various interests affected. The hon. Gentleman would not dare to suggest to the House that the coal-miners were adequately consulted about their problem if, at the eleventh hour, when the Bill was already in print, their Executive Committee were consulted on that matter. He would recognise that the members of the organisation concerned have every right to be consulted on the broad principles of proposals, if there is going to be consultation in any real sense of the word. Again, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health is himself contemplating introducing legislation
dealing with the local government of London. That is a matter which affects the particular interests of the various boroughs in London, and he is consulting those interests. He is not, however, consulting them at the eleventh hour, when the Bill is already in draft. He understands, by consultation, consulting them many months in advance, going over the various problems which concerns them, and then drafting the proposed legislation in accordance with the views expressed during those consultations. We contend that the same course should have been adopted in this case. The right hon. Gentleman says he never received the telegram referred to by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) last night, but he received it this morning. I wonder, however, if he has received, as most Members on this side have received, letters of protest from the members of the various approved societies affected. I have one in my hand now, dated 27th March. I do not know that I ought to trouble the Committee [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it.!"]:
At an emergency meeting of the Committee of Management of the National Amalgamated Approved Society held on 24th March, 1926, for the purpose of considering the Government's Economy Bill, it was unanimously resolved "—
This is not the voice of a consultative council or an unrepresentative body like that, but the authentic voice of the rank and file. That is the voice that ought to be listened to:
(1) That the Committee of Management of the National Amalgamated Approved Society, representing 2,300,000 insured persons, having had laid before it the consequences of the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill on the finances of the society, hereby records its deep concern at the proposal of the Government to withdraw a substantial portion of the State grant to National Health Insurance.

The CHAIRMAN: To quote further would be going into merits.

Mr. THURTLE: I was merely seeking to point out that if this matter really were referred to the rank and file, and a consultation in the real sense were to take place, it would become apparent even to the right hon. Gentleman himself that there was intense indignation
amongst these 15,000,000 insured persons at the way they have been treated by the Government by having this piece of legislation hurried forward in the most unjustifiable manner, and therefore I support the protests that have been made from this side of the Committee, and also from the other side by someone who speaks with great authority in regard to insured persons, and by many hon. Members below the Gangway, against the way this legislation is being hurried through. I ask the Minister even at this late hour, in the interests of fair play, to defer consideration of this vital Clause and allow the mass of the people concerned to he properly consulted.

Mr. BROAD: I should like to add my voice to those who are asking to postpone consideration of the matter till after Easter Recess. None of us can say honestly and sincerely that three weeks from the first suggestion of these provisions is an adequate time to give to the country so that they may apprehend what is proposed to be done with their societies and their funds. There has been no suggestion in advance of that time, no general indication of what we might expect, nothing to lead anyone to suppose the Government had such a Measure in contemplation. The Under-Secretary has told us that the Minister has consulted the proper body to represent the approved Members on this matter and lie said that body was appointed under Clause 58 of the Act of 1911. Anyone reading that Clause must agree that that Advisory Committee was not in contemplation, nor has it as its function to represent the members of the society as to the policy the Government should pursue. This is the Clause:
The insurance Commissioners shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, appoint an Advisory Committee for the purpose of giving the Insurance Commissioners advice and assistance in Connection with the making and altering of Regulations under this part of this Act, consisting of representatives of associations of employers and approved societies and of duly qualified medical practitioners who have personal experience of general practice and of such other persons as the Commissioners may appoint, of whom two at least shall be women.
For the purpose of making regulations dealing with the application of that Act, the gentlemen and the two ladies whom
the Ministry have selected may be perfectly qualified to advise the Minister in a consultative capacity, but I think no one can contend that such a Committee is a consultative Committee to represent the interests of the approved members. If that is the only pretext of the consultation with the approved members or their representatives that the Minister has made, it is a mere subterfuge and a pretext to call that consulting the interests of the societies. If the Under-Secretary relies on such advice as this to pretend that consultation has taken place it shows indeed how weak is the Minister's case, and what an attempt this is to rush this through to catch people surprised and unready so that it may be an accomplished fact before the approved members realise what is being done with their interests. I hope the Committee, in common fairness and decency and honesty, will see that a proper opportunity is given to approved societies up and down the country to call the delegates together—they are the only people who can speak for the approved societies to express their opinion. If we get that opportunity, every Member on that side will realise, from the pressure of feeling he will get on the matter, that in his own interests and in the interests of the seat he holds, he will be very careful to use his influence with the Minister to see that this Clause is cut out of the Bill.

Mr. BECKETT: On a point of Order. I wish to ask your guidance, Sir. Throughout this Bill we are continually referred to other Acts dealing with National Health Insurance. I and others on this side have been to the Vote Office and all round the place to try to get these Acts. We learn that we cannot. We are quite unable to follow closely the Clauses without them. It is possible for anyone to mislead us as to their contents. Is it within your power to order these Acts to be supplied at the Vote Office?

The CHAIRMAN: No, I think not, but I might point out that there are numerous copies of the Statute in the Library.

Mr. BECKETT: I am aware of that, but they have already all been bagged.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I feel, after the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary, that I cannot allow the Debate to conclude without saying one
or two words, because a pledge I gave at the time of the Act of 1911 is involved. He said that in 1911, on behalf of the Government of the day, I gave a pledge that an advisory committee should be set up representative of the approved societies, and that before any steps seriously affecting the approved societies were taken by any Government that advisory committee should be consulted. It is admitted that up to the present every Government has faithfully adhered to that pledge—not merely the Government of which I was a member but all the predecessors of the present Government.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) gave a very striking instance of what happened in the ease of the Government of which he was a Member. May I point out what are the implications of the statement he has made. He said, "Our method of consulting the approved societies was to go to that body set up by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. There was a statutory body for the purpose."What does he call an honest consultation? The very morning of the day the Bill was introduced—I am very glad we have had this Debate to drag it out—after it had been drafted, after it had passed the Cabinet—the Bill is really in the hands of the printer. It is brought; in that afternoon. They met in the morning and discussed, and I understand they gave their opinion in the afternoon, which means that practically after the Bill has been introduced they had what is called a consultation. The words used are "giving them advice and assistance."They were called together to insult them. The right hon. Gentleman thinks it a very amusing thing to call people together for help and advice when you had already made up your mind as to the course you are to take and had actually taken it. Was the Cabinet not entitled to that help and advice? There are many of us who have long experience of Cabinets—some of us a great many years and some a few years—but there is no man who has been a member of a Cabinet who does not know that before any Bill is introduced the Cabinet has an opportunity of examining it, and if it has an opportunity of examining it it ought to have all the facts. Surely it was a most relevant fact for the Cabinet to know that the whole of the Approved Societies
were opposed to the Bill being introduced. That fact was withheld by the right hon. Gentleman from his own colleagues before the Bill is ever sanctioned to be brought into the House of Commons.
May I say another word as to the way it has been done? There was the Second Reading of the Bill. Was the fact revealed to the House of Commons by the Minister that the only method of consulting the approved societies had been by the Statutory Committee which had been set up, and that having consulted them they had by 28 to 6 turned it down? Why was that fact withheld from the House of Commons? Those were relevant facts because you are dealing with a business that is run by a society with 15,000,000 of members. I forget for the moment whether the Advisory Committee was nominated by the Minister or elected.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: They are not nominated by the Minister, but by their own groups.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Then there is a certain representative value in that. That makes it all the more important that they should have been consulted. Here is a body, nominated by groups representing the approved societies, and their help and advice is asked. For what purpose? For the purpose, presumably, of advising the Government as to what action they should take in a matter that vitally affects their interests. I am not going into the merits of that, but I am bound to describe what it is in two sentences. I shall not transgress. I am too old a Parliamentarian to do that. Here is something that affects the whole scheme of the 1911 Act, which means the gradual development and increase of benefits. Here is something that shatters it. "The societies were consulted,"says the right hon. Gentleman. "I consulted them that very morning, when I had decided what I had to do. The Government consulted them, through me, but I never told the Government what they said. The Government never knew."I asked the right hon. Gentleman, Did he, after the Advisory Committee had turned down the scheme, go to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet and say, "I am sorry. The people who are affected have practically unanimously turned down the scheme "? Not at all ! The Bill was already introduced before we
ever knew. It is not fair to the House of Commons to have withheld that fact. It is not fair to the Government of the day to have withheld that fact. If every Minister treats advisory committees in that way, it is a perfect farce and a sham.

Mr. RICHARDSON: I desire to enter my protest against the manner in which the Government are bringing forward this Bill, and the unseemly and hurried way in which they are pressing it before the approved societies have been consulted. The Committee which the Government have consulted is not responsible for the work which this Bill seeks to do. It is there in a different capacity. There are other associations much nearer to the approved society members. Was the Association of Approved Societies consulted before the Government took this step? If the Minister says "Yes,"then I tell him that all these approved societies are up against his proposal. They believe it to be wrong, and they say that the harm that will be done will be incalculable. Some of us move among the approved society members daily when we are at

home, and we find them protesting in as loud a voice as they can against this Bill. They complain that the Government is proposing to take away their benefits, without consultation. I urge the Government for their own sake and for the sake of these 15,000,000 people to hold their hands and to give time for the Bill to be considered by the rank and file of the approved society members. Let the Government act on the decision of the approved societies rather than on the decision which they have arrived at themselves. There cannot have been the consultation which is necessary for a great Measure like this. If the miners' leaders acted in the way that the Government have clone, they would not be in office 10 minutes; they would be kicked out. I urge the Government to let the people affected have a say in the matter.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN rose in, his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 232; Noes, 127.

Division No. 108.]
AYES.
[6.6 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Fraser, Captain Ian


Albery, Irving James
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Frimantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)
Gadle, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Chapman, Sir S.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Charterls, Brigadier-General J.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Atkinson, C.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Gee, Captain R.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Clarry, Reginald George
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Balniel, Lord
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Goff, Sir Park


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Gower, Sir Robert


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Cope, Major William
Grace, John


Beilairs, Commander Canyon W.
Couper, J. S.
Grant, J. A.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Bennett, A. J.
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Berry, Sir George
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Grotrian, H. Brent


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Blundell, F. N.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Haslam, Henry C.


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hanke, John Anthony


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Brass, Captain W.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Henderson, Capt. R R.(Oxf'd,Henley)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Briscoe, Richard George
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur p.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.Newh'y)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & WhbY)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Hills, Major John Waller


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Bullock, Captain M.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St.Niarylebone)


Burman, J. B.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Holt, Captain H. P.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Fermoy, Lord
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Campbell, E. T.
Fielden, E. B.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. K.


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Huntingfield, Lord
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Murchison, C. K.
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Jacob, A. E
Nelson, Sir Frank
Templeton, W. P.


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, south)


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Nuttall, Ellis
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Lamb, J. Q.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Pilcher, G.
Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Locer, J. de V.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Locker, Herbert William
Radford, E. A.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Lord, Walter Greaves-
Raine, W.
Wells, S. R.


Lougher, L.
Ramsden, E.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Remnant, Sir James
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Maclntyre, Ian
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Wise, Sir Fredric


McLean, Major A.
Salmon, Major I.
Wolmer, Viscount


Macmillan, Captain H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Womersley, W. J.


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Macquisten, F. A.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Sandon, Lord
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Wood, Sir S. Hill (High Peak)


Malone, Major P. B.
Shepperson, E. W.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Skelton, A. N.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hun. Sir L.


Margesson, Captain D.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine.C.)



Meller, R. J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Merriman, F. B.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Major Hennessy and Captain


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
 Viscount Curzon.


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Grundy, T. W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Ammon, Charles George
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Potts, John S.


Attlee Clement Richard
Hardle, George D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Harney, E. A.
Riley, Ben


Barnes, A.
Harris, Percy A
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W. R., Elland)


Barn, J.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Rose, Frank H.


Batey, Joseph
Hayday, Arthur
Sexton, James


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hayes, John Henry
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Briant, Frank
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Broad, F. A.
Hirst, G. H.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bromfield, William
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Bromley, J.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Sitch, Charles H.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, Robert


Buchanan, G.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Cape, Thomas
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Snell, Harry


Clowes, S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stamford, T. W.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kennedy, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Comoton, Joseph
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Connolly, M.
Kirkwood, D.
Taylor, R. A.


Cove, W. G,
Lansbury, George
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lawson, John James
Thome, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Dalton, Hugh
Lee, F.
Thurtle, E.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Livingstone, A. M.
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lowth, T.
Trevetyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Day Colonel Harry
Lunn, William
Varley, Frank B.


Dennison, R.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Viant, S. P.


Duncan, C.
Mackinder, W.
Wallhead, Richard C.


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
March, S.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Gibbins, Joseph
Morris, R. H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gillett, George M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhonddn)


Gosling, Harry
Naylor, T. E.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Oliver, George Harold
Westwood, J.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Palin, John Henry
Whiteley, W.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Paling, W.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Groves, T.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)




Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)
Wright, W.
Mr. Warne and Mr. Charles Edwards.


Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)



Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause he postponed."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 129; Noes, 229.

Division No. 109.]
AYES.
[6.12 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Sexton, James


Alexander. A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hardie, George D.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Ammon, Charles George
Harney, E, A.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Attlee, Clement Richard
Harris, Percy A.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Barnes, A.
Hayday, Arthur
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Barr, J.
Hayes, John Henry
Sitch, Charles H.


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A, (Burnley)
Smillie, Robert


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow;
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Briant, Frank
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Broad, F. A.
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Snell, Harry


Bromfield, William
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bromley, J
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stamford, T. W.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stephen, Campbell


Buchanan, G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Taylor, R A.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cape, Thomas
Kennedy, T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Charleton, H. C.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Thurtle, E.


Clowes, S.
Kirkwood, D
Tinker, John Joseph


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, George
Treveiyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Compton, Joseph
Lawson, John James
Varley, Frank B.


Connolly, M.
Lee, F.
Viant, S. P.


Cove, W. G.
Lowth, T.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lunn, William
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dalton, Hugh
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Warne, G. H.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Mackinder, W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
March, S.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Day, Colonel Harry
Morris. R. H
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Dennison, R.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottonham, N.)
Westwood, J.


Duncan, C.
Naylor, T. E.
Whiteley, W.


Dunnlco, H.
Oliver, George Harold
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Edward, C. (Monmouth, Bedweilty)
Palin, John Henry
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Paling, W.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Gibbins, Joseph
Parkinson. John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Gillett, George M.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, C. H (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Gosling, Harry
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Potts, John S.
Wright, W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Remnant, Sir James
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Groves, T.
Riley, Ben
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Robinson,W. C. (Yorks.W. R., Elland)
Sir Godfrey Collins and Sir Robert Hutchison.


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Rose, Frank H.



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Briscoe, Richard George
Courtauld, Major J. S.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Brittain, Sir Harry
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Croft. Brigadier-General Sir H.


Allen, J.Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)
Crookshank.Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent,Daver)
Buckingham, Sir H.
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert


Atkinson, C.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bullock, Captain M.
Dalkeith, Earl of


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Burman, J. B.
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.


Balniel, Lord
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Barclay-Harvey, C. W.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset, Yeovil)


Barnett, Major Sir R.
Campbell, E. T.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Dawson, Sip Philip


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Eden, Captain Anthony


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Bennett, A. J.
Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm., W.)
Elliot, Captain Walter E.


Berry, Sir George
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Chapman, Sir S.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Blundell, F. N.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Fermoy, Lord


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Clarry, Reginald George
Fielden, E. B.


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Fraser, Captain Ian


Brass, Captain W.
Colfox, Major Win. Phillips
Fremantic, Lt.-Col. Francis E.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Couper, J. B.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Salmon, Major I.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Loder, J. de V.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Gee, Captain R.
Looker, Herbert William
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Lord, Walter Greaves-
Sandon, Lord


Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lougher, L.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Glye, Major R. G. C.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Shepperson, E. W.


Goff, Sir Park
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Herman
Skelton, A. N.


Gower, Sir Robert
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Grace, John
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dtne. C.)


Grant, J. A.
MacIntyre, Ian
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
McLean, Major A.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
MacMillan, Captain H.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Grotrian, H. Brent
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Macquisten, F. A.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Malong, Major P. B.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Haslam Henry C.
Margesson, Captain D.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Hawke, John Anthony
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Meller, R. J.
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Merriman, F. B.
Templeton, W. P.


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootie)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. S. M.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Herbert, S.(York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T, C. R. (Ayr)
Vaughan-Morgart, Co). K. P.


Hills, Major John Waller
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Moore-Srabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Ward, Lt.-Col.A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Wells, S. R.


Holt, Capt. H. P.
Murchison, C. K.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. O. L. (Exeter)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Nicholson, Col.Rt.Hn.W.G. (Ptrsfld.)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Nuttall, Ellis
Wise, Sir Fredric


Hudson, Capt. A. U.M. (Hackney, N.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wolmer, Viscount


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Womersley, W. J.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Pileher, G.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Huntingfield, Lord
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Wood, Sir Kinpsley (Woolwich, W.).


Jacob, A. E.
Radford, E. A.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Kidd. J. (Llnilthgow)
Raine, W.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Kindsrsley, Major Guy M.
Ramsden, E.
Worthington- Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


King Captain Henry Douglas
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)



Lamb, J. O.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hertford)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Ruggies-Brise, Major E. A.
Major Hennessy and Major Cope.


Bill read a Second time and committed.

Mr. THOMAS: Before I move an Amendment which stands on the Paper in my name, I wish to ask the ruling of the Chair. It will be observed that the Amendment covers a very wide field, and I wondered whether it would meet the general wishes of the Committee if in moving the Amendment I dealt with the wider issue involved.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to discuss the whole Clause.

Mr. THOMAS: No.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Then what does he mean by the "wider issues "?

Mr. THOMAS: On the putting of the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill, "the whole Debate could be reopened. Sometimes that meets the convenience of the Committee, and the
Chairman takes the view, that on an Amendment the wider discussion can take place, so as to save such a discussion on the Question, "That the Clause stand part, of the Bill."

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If that be the object, I shall certainly offer no objection whatever to the course proposed, which might be a convenience. It is understood that the whole matter is not to be discussed again on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): I am very largely in the hands of the Committee, and my wish is to study their convenience. It must be clearly understood that, if we have a wide discussion on the Amendment, it is not to be repeated on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I fall in with the suggestion which I understand the Minister accepts. It would certainly be for the convenience of the Committee, and in the public interest, that the discussion on the general principle should take place on the Amendment of my right hon. Friend, rather than on the question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill. The proposal means that, co far as Members who are in opposition to the Bill are concerned, the Debate takes place on the Amendment. That does not mean that further Amendments on specific issues are ruled out, but that so far as the general principle of the Clause is concerned, the discussion takes place now. Is that so?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The arrangement certainly would not rule out specific Amendments on other detailed questions. I hope it is understood that we cannot have a repetition of the Debate on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. LANSBURY: I want to know about the time that you are going to give to these general discussions. Are we going to be Closured in a couple of hours?

Mr. BLUNDELL: I hope that this arrangement will not affect my Amendment, which I understand comes next?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I thought I had made it clear that subsequent Amendments would not he interfered with by this arrangement.

Mr. THOMAS: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, at the beginning, to insert the words "As from the appointed day."
The Government have just decided, with the help of their supporters, to deprive those people who are the only people affected by the Bill, of the only opportunity of discussing their position. It is quite true that the decision just recorded was not unexpected by those on this side of the Committee. At the same time the Government have said, "No, we are against any further consultation—although we have had none. We do not believe in the rank and file being considered, therefore we are going to get this Clause before the House rises."That is the decision at which we have just arrived. My Amendment will give right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite another opportunity. If they are satisfied that it is unwise to
consult, if they feel that they can ignore the views of their constituencies; what I propose to ask in the Amendment is whether it would not be fairer whether they themselves would not feel more comfortable if, having voted with the Government, having trotted into the Lobby, having said, "This Clause is to be the measure of the Government's economy, "they had a legitimate excuse for going to their constituents and saying, "Yes, although I was loyal to the Government, although as a strict party man I did my duty, although I helped to carry this Clause, yet I safeguarded it from being operative until the next General Election, when I will tell you all about it."That, shortly, is the object of the Amendment. In other words, it is what we call an essentially democratic Amendment which will truly demonstrate in the Lobby those who believe in democracy and those who do not. But it is necessary in urging this to ask ourselves, why are the Government taking the extraordinary step which they are taking to-day?
I have always said, publicly and privately, that I have a great opinion of the ability of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health. I look upon him as one who really knows his job. It is amazing to me that the right hon. Gentleman has allowed himself to be jockeyed intro this position that he, with all his knowledge and social interests and all the work he has done in connection with friendly societies, has allowed a Chancellor of the Exchequer who knows nothing about any of those things to put him into a position which is not only uncomfortable, but which may rob him of £400 per year in the future. How he allowed himself to he placed in that position is beyond my comprehension. As a matter of fact, the Prime Minister himself has to some extent explained the Government's tactics of to-day. When the Prime Minister was asked a few days ago whether he would postpone the Committee stage of this Bill, he said "No, "because it was imperative that the Government should know where they were prior to the Budget, having regard to the effect of these Clauses on the Budget. I think it will be generally agreed that was the Prime Minister's answer. What a compliment to hon. Members opposite ! How comfortable they most feel, because what the Prime Minister said in essence
was this: "In the ordinary way I could rely upon my majority; in the ordinary way the Division Lobby would prove my followers loyal, but in this matter I wonder whether there is not some doubt in the case, and I bad better be sure before the Budget is introduced."That is the implication of the right hon. Gentleman's reply. Therefore, the Minister of Health follows it tip and says in effect: "Whatever doubt the Prime Minister may have had in a general way, as between now and three weeks hence, when the Budget is introduced, it will be fatal if I allow three days to go."That is why we have the extraordinary procedure of rushing this Bill through the Committee stage.
In order to substantiate and justify the claim that the Amendment which I now move is fair and reasonable, I am going to submit it on three grounds. I am first going to ask the Committee if they remember any previous case in which an important Royal Commission was appointed, in which that Commission invited evidence and presented a report, and in which the Government of the day actually tok from that report certain proposals but never gave the House of Commons an opportunity of discussing the report? I ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite whether at the last Election, any one of them said anything about National Health Insurance? I have seen the Election addresses, not of all candidates, but of those whom I would describe as the more important and the more likely to be returned—and I frankly admit we had a number of dark horses for which we did not bargain, any more than we bargained for the Russian letter. At all events, I ask any hon. Member opposite, Did he either in answer to a question or in a speech indicate to approved society members that, if returned, his party proposed to interfere in any way with the surpluses of those societies? I venture to say not only did no Member make that statement, but I go further and say I do not think that such action was contemplated, because every Member knew—if he knew anything of politics—that there was a Royal Commission in being, dealing with that subject. Every Member knew that that Commission was taking evidence and that its object was to review the whole Measure of the Insurance Act and make recommendations.
What is to be said, then, of the Government's action; what defence or excuse is there for it? Incidentally, the. Royal Commission presented a Majority Report and a Minority Report. The Government take from the Majority Report certain recommendations, and, before allowing the House to express any opinion on that Report, they plank down these recommendations, and, in defiance of every precedent, say they are going to force them through. It is not sufficient excuse here on this Wednesday afternoon, and it will not be sufficient excuse in future, for Members to say that they did not realise all that was involved in this matter because—make no mistake about it—the approved societies will not forget this procedure, but will ask hon. Members precisely the same questions as those which I ask now.
Apart from the fact that the House was not given an opportunity of discussing the Report—apart from this unprecedented procedure—I submit that the Report itself is the best condemnation of the Government's action, and I ask hon. Members to mark that this is the Report on which, in part, the Government are proceeding. I wonder, incidentally, how many hon. Members opposite have read the Report? If they have read it they will recognise that the majority of the Commission say, in substance, that what the Government are doing in this Clause is fatal to the future of the approved societies. I turn to page 333 of the Report—and I would remind the Committee that at this stage the Commission were in this difficulty. They had heard evidence, and they were in a frame of mind in which they asked themselves: "What were the intentions of the Act; what was contemplated and what recommendation will be consistent with the promises made? "That was the frame of mind they were in when they penned these words.

Sir K. WOOD: Is this the actuarial Report?

Mr. THOMAS: My hon. Friend has had a good innings, and he is not going to divert me in the least from my purpose. He knows what I am quoting. I said distinctly it was the Report of the Royal Commission which was dealing then with the evidence, and I tried to
indicate what was in their minds at the time. This is what they said.

Sir K. WOOD: What the actuaries said?

Mr. THOMAS: The actuaries say so. I am trying to explain to the Committee that evidence was being taken. Evidence had been given when the Commission had to consider this question, and the first people they had to consult were the actuaries, and the actuaries said:
It is clear, however, that Parliament intended the scheme to be solvent regarded as a whole, whatever might follow from the grouping of risks incidental to the voluntary segregation of insured persons in approved societies.
I ask hon. Members to follow that expression. I ask them to observe that the scheme is to be considered as one administered by a large number of approved societies and as a scheme wherein the risks not only differ but are not comparable as between various trades and industries, the result being that some societies show a considerable surplus while a smaller number of societies are always near the border line. The actuaries, in suggesting to the Commission what was the intention of Parliament, wanted to emphasise that "solvency"did not mean solvency for this, that or the other society, but solvency for all the societies and for the scheme as a whole. Let us now turn to page 345—
It is impossible to form any definite opinion as to the membership of the societies which the new burdens would place in deficiency"—
Those are the new burdens which they recommend—
one of the difficulties of the position being that the numbers would grow as the surpluses hitherto carried forward in subnormal cases became exhausted and the full force of the new charges had to be met without the possibility of assistance from this source. We are led to expect, after making the best estimates of which the case admits, that the effect of the new burdens would be to create eventually a condition of deficiency in societies representing about 10 per cent. of the whole insured population.
I ask hon. Members to observe that they first point out that the question of solvency is to be considered and determined not in relation to a particular society but in relation to the societies as a whole.
Then, in the latter paragraph, they go on to say that they think there would he a deficiency in about 10 per cent. Follow these words:
This is a grave prospect, and although the machinery of the Central Fund is sufficient, we believe, to meet the situation, we do not think we are going beyond our duty in inviting the Royal Commission to consider the effect upon the credit of the whole system of the adoption of changes such as might produce deficiency to the extent here indicated on the valuations of the societies—even though the means of subsequent adjustment existed and were ample for the purpose.
"Subsequent adjustment"means a reconsideration of the position.

Sir K. WOOD: indicated dissent.

Mr. THOMAS: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but it cannot mean anything else than a reconsideration of the circumstances as they then might be. The point I am making is this: Here is a Report containing this evidence, and before we have had an opportunity of even hearing the Government's view, they are taking a certain course. We have never heard whether they are going to adopt the Majority Report, or what their views of the Minority Report are, and the societies who are acting under their instructions are not only anxious to know but entitled to know, and, which is even more important, this House is entitled to give a lead and to express its opinion, but before any such occasion is given, the Government seize this opportunity of interfering with the whole administration of the Act.
Another point arises from that. Is it the intention of the Government to allow the House to debate the matter? Are we to assume that the Government do not intend this important. Report to be discussed at all? If so, the sooner they abolish Royal Commissions the better, but if they do intend a discussion, and we are to have a debate, look at the difficulty in which Members on both sides of the House are placed. If we are to have a debate, the Government turn round and say: "It is impossible for you to do anything, either on the Minority Report or on the Majority Report, because we have already taken all the plums that suit us out of the Report, and the rest can go."That is an additional reason why, so far as this House is concerned, it ought at least to have an
opportunity, not only of consulting its constituents, but of saying to its constituents: "I have not prejudiced you until I gave you another chance."Let us see the justification for this attitude. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health, when he spoke last on this matter, said:
Surely, when we have in the past assisted this scheme so much, we are entitled to consider now, when the State, is contributing two-ninths, to take into account the fact that the approved societies have not only received a rate of interest of something like 5 per cent. which was only 3 per cent, under the original scheme, but they have accumulated surpluses largely at the expense of the taxpayers. I cannot understand how anybody can justify the statement that a matter of that kind is a repudiation of the contract we have made. Is anyone prepared to say, if at the time the scheme was first brought in it had been realised that the circumstances were going to he what they turned out to be in regard to the rate of interest, that the bargain would have gone through in that form? "[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1926: col. 517, Vol. 193.]
I rather gather that that statement is accepted by hon. Members opposite. I ask the Committee to remember a statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a few weeks ago, in a series of questions that he put to this side of the House. The first question he asked was whether Members on this side would agree, or even suggest, that the rate of interest which is a bargain between those woo loaned the money to the State and the State should be interfered with. Of course, there was a loud cry of "No!" See the implication. "Because the interest, "says my right hon. Friend, "which was contemplated when the Act was introduced was 3 per cent., we, the Government, claim the right to take advantage of the 5 per cent. in order to raid their funds."That is the statement of the Minister of Health. Boiled down, that is actually what he means, and I am sure he would not dissent.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I do.

Mr. THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman dissent from the statement he made, which I have just read out, that one of the reasons why the Government were doing what is contemplated in this Bill was the change in the rate of interest from 3 per cent. to 5 per cent.?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I dissent from nothing which I have already stated. What I dissent from is the right hon. Gentleman's paraphrase of my remarks, which is generally very different from their original form.

Mr. THOMAS: That being so, does the right hon. Gentleman accept the last statement, namely, that in his speech he said distinctly that one of the reasons for his course of action was in consequence of the approved societies being able to obtain 5 per cent. now, whereas 3 per cent. was originally estimated.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I said that that was one of the justifications.

Mr. THOMAS: I leave the Committee to judge as to the difference between "reason" and "justification." That is one of the reasons, and, that being so, I ask the Committee to examine that statement. It is wrong according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it is wrong according to the Government, and it would he a breach of faith and the end of all things sacred in this country, to say to someone who loaned the Government money and was promised 5 per cent., that changed circumstances did not justify a review of the situation. I am going to apply it in actual money terms. What about the people who loaned the Government £1, 000 at. 5 per cent, when the cost of living was at 142, four years ago, and when the sovereign was worth about 8s.? They are still getting their 5 per cent. The Government say it would be a crime to interfere with that, but if the Government anticipated that in the changes of five, years their money would have appreciated to the extent of nearly double the value it was when it was put in, that is not a violation of contract. So far as the approved society members were concerned, they were only entitled to expect 3 per cent., but, because they now get 5 per cent., the Government say they are justified in interfering.
There is another side to this question, and it is this: What were the approved society members under the 3 per cent. basis promised? They were promised a certain sick benefit, and their wives were promised a maternity grant. It is true that the interest has gone up from 3 per cent. to 5 per cent., hut it is equally true that the value, of their 10s. sickness benefit
and their 30s. maternity grant has gone down, so that, instead of them receiving what they were actually promised, they are getting less. The spending power affects them so that they are getting less than the original bargain, but when it comes to interest, of course, the Government come along and say: "Ah, we did not anticipate 5 per cent., and therefore you must suffer as a result."
7.0 P.M.
Let me come to the second point. Surely the value of the two-ninths in 1911 to the societies themselves in their administration shows a remarkable change. The two-ninths is not so valuable now as it was then. I am going to say, quite deliberately, in regard to the words used by my right hon. Friend to the effect that it was not a breach of faith, that it is a breach of faith. Curiously enough, I do not think the author of this real plan is in the House at this moment. I think he is out in the country. Hon. Members will remember that there was just a hint given 12 months ago about this, and it was dropped like a hot cake. The hint came from the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir B. Horne). He first threw it out, but when he found on all sides what the feelings of the House and the country were, we never heard anything more about it. In fact, he took the necessary steps to pretend that he did not quite mean that, but my right hon. Friend cannot get away from it. My right hon. Friend was dealing with this very point, and let us see what he said. I am quoting from the present Minister of Health:
I should like to say a few words—I do not need to say very much—about the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne). I do not think that the House would desire that I should go into the details of the Health Insurance scheme in a Debate on the Third Reading of the Pensions Bill, but I am myself, I am afraid, responsible for inviting my right hon. Friend to enlarge a little more on his ideas on the Third Reading, and I promised that I would endeavour to make some answer to him and put before the House some considerations which, I should think, had been present to his mind when he first spoke on the subject.
See what follows:
I am very glad to hear my right hon. Friend disclaim any idea of raiding the surpluses. That, in my view, would certainly be interpreted, and, I think, with some justification as a breach of pledges
which have been given to the approved societies. It has been expected that the reward of efficiency of administration on their part would be the power to use these surpluses in order to give additional benefits to their members. And to say to those who have exercised efficiency in their administration in the hope of obtaining these additional benefits, 'We are going to take away that which you have by your thrift and your care accumulated, ' would, it seems to me, be an unjustifiable procedure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, 1925: cols. 2366–67, Vol. 186.]
That was the present Minister of Health speaking in July, 1925. I would ask the House to observe that any attempt to interfere with the surpluses would not only be a breach of faith, but would be a blow against careful and efficient management. That is the Minister of Health speaking in July, 1925, but to raid £2, 900, 000 to-day is an act of grace as far as he is concerned. He is doing them a good turn. It is all for their benefit. It is not interfering with their surpluses. It is not a surplus at all. Let us examine that point. First of all, where does this £2, 900, 000 come from? It comes from the accumulated surpluses due, in the words of the right hon. Gentleman, to the increased interest from 3 to 5 per cent.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: indicated dissent.

Mr. THOMAS: None of it? Very well, my right hon. Friend says it does not come from that. That being so, there is no point in the increased interest from 3 to 5 per cent. But, to come back, can any Member of the House deny this? If this claim was not made and hon. Members defeated this Clause, and if they said this would be a breach of faith, can anyone deny this simple proposition, that when the next valuation takes place the surpluses would be the greater by this amount and those surpluses could be used for additional benefit? You can argue where it comes from or does not come from, but there is the cold hard fact, that the thing to which the approved society officer and the approved society member will want an answer is that simple proposition, "Where do you get the money from? And, if you do not take it, then we shall have it."And they would have it, for the purpose of giving effect to what was originally intended in the Act, the additional benefits approved by Statute.
But I want to come back, because the right hon. Gentleman resented the sug-
gestion that this was a breach of faith. Hare let me say that I have always opposed those who have been in opposition to Parliamentary institutions, because I have always believed that the one thing which was essential was for people to believe in Parliament, and, above all, to believe that when a bargain is made by Ministers that bargain will be kept. Anything that destroys that faith and belief is likely to have very serious consequences. Therefore, I have been at pains to try and get out some of the pledges made. Here let me say to those Members who were in the House when this Bill was passed, that they will remember, to put it no higher, it was a very lively House of Commons. The people who were not going to lick stamps have since licked the right hon. Gentleman's boots. They were not going to do all manner of things, and there was what one would call a very serious Parliamentary situation created. It was with considerable hesitancy that the trade unions and the friendly societies took this matter up at all. There are some of us on these benches now who were in the original discussions, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) always took an opposite view. He was all against having anything to do with the Act. But those of us who agreed Lock this view, that, if this Act of Parliament was going to benefit the great mass of the people, we ought to throw our machinery into it, but we did it not after only ordinary consultations, for I do not think there was any Bill where so much consultation took place—not the kind of consultations that took place when there were consultations in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) world not have dared to come and throw, even at the breakfast table, this Bill at us and say it was going to be introduced that afternoon.
Clear and definite promises and pledges were given. It was because of the promises and the bargains and the clear and specific pledges that things were done and that we agreed to administer the Act, but the House was very suspicious. The right hon. Gentleman opposite was not in it. It was not his lob. He was looking on. But someone who did take an active part was the present Secretary of State for War, the
Member for Colchester (Sir L. Worthington-Evans), who led the opposition and who was the Conservative spokesman of the day. He was the man who was putting all the questions from that side. In addition, the right hon. Gentleman the present Lord Reading was in charge of the Bill, and therefore the very points I am dealing with now were questions that were agitating the mind of the House at the time, and the very thing is taking place which some Members actually anticipated.
Just let us see the kind of pledges that were given. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), speaking on the 4th of May, and dealing with the deficiency question, said:
At the end of that time, of course, there will be a considerable sum that will have been realised for the purpose of increasing the benefits, and those who come in early will then get the benefit of their thrift by having a considerable sum of money added to the sum which is available for increasing the benefits. … Those over forty-five join at rates appropriate to their awes, but they also get the benefit of the State contribution for what it is worth to them, and, of course, it is worth a great deal.
The State contribution, remember, was two-ninths, and it was this two-ninths with which he was dealing. He was dealing, not only with the then prescribed benefits, but with the additional benefits which were provided in the Act. Please remember that two-ninths, he said, would then be worth a great deal. Dealing with the surpluses that were contemplated after the period of valuation, the right hon. Gentleman said:
We propose, therefore, to have a list of alternative benefits, optional benefits and additional benefits. … I now conic to the additional benefits. … This surplus will be £1, 750, 000 immediately the scheme begins to work, but at the end of 15½ years, when the loss on the older persons has been wiped out, you will then have an addition of something like £5, 500, 000 to the fund, and, of course, that will involve a further contribution from the State of £1, 500, 000.
Please observe all through the calculation is made on the two-ninths.
That means £7, 000, 000, which will be added to the income of the scheme after this initial deficit has been wiped out. … What is the kind of additional benefit we have in mind? The first is medical treatment, not merely for the working man himself but for his family. If the societies who administer the funds like to pay
for that they have the money at their disposal. An increase of the sickness and disablement benefit and convalescent homes are other additional benefits. I have a long list of additional benefits of that kind from which they can choose, but I think the most interesting of all would be that, when the fifteen years and a-half have elapsed, when the loss has been paid off, and when you have released a fund of £7, 000, 000 between the State and the contributors, we shall then be within sight of declaring either a pension at 65, or, what I think would be better still—and I propose this as an alternative—if a man does not choose to take his pension at 65, but prefers to go on working, we shall increase his pension at a later stage in proportion to each traditional year he goes on working."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1911; cols. 617–631, Vol. 25.]
Increased benefits to the family, increased benefits to the man, convalescent homes and all additional benefits, of which, mark you, the competition amongst the approved societies is the best test of the value put upon them. I know it is easy to sneer at people, because it is said they like to get money for nothing. Anyone has only to see the administration of the Insurance Act to see the care taken to prevent anyone abusing the benefits. Their own men act as detectives really, to see if there is any malingering, because they say to such, "You are not only doing an injustice, but you are robbing us of the additional benefits we want for ourselves and families."Incidentally, it is going to be a very interesting situation now, because when we deal with the deliquent, when we deal with the man who is having a day's sick pay which he ought not to have, and such like, and we say to him, "Do not forget you are robbing the society, "he will say, "That is not a sin now. The Minister and the Government have set us that example."But what is more fatal, and what the Government may pay dearly for is this: Supposing the approved societies take the view that there is no encouragement for thrift and good management. Supposing they take that view and say, "Oh, no, if this is the Government's method; if this is the way we are to be treated for all our care in this matter, then the Government must take the responsibility.' It will not be £2, 900, 000 you are going to save; you will be faced with a very serious situation, and, make no mistake, the approved societies will seriously consider that view.
The approved societies will be entitled to consider whether, in view of the definite pledge made to them, they are not justified in saying, "Then you yourselves must administer it."Because, remember, there is not a Member sitting on the Government benches who can say that he has received from any quarter of any sort or kind—trade union or friendly society—one word except in condemnation of this. And yet, in defiance of all that, the Government are going on. That was the pledge of the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill. Lord Buxton, then Mr. Sidney Buxton, President of the Board of Trade, took part in the Debate. Here let me say I do not think anyone had a greater knowledge of what I would call casual employment at the docks than Lord Buxton, and he took a very great interest in it. He, again, was asked a question specifically during the Debate, and he said:
I think the House is generally agreed that it is time that the employer and the State should enter into partnership with the working man in order, as far as possible, to mitigate the severity of the burden which falls upon him. The State contribution is strictly limited in proportion to the contribution paid by the employer on the one hand, and the workman on the other.
"The State contribution is strictly limited."The point of that is this. Supposing there is an actuarial valuation, and some societies show a deficit—and I am told there are some likely to do it—does the State come to the rescue? Does the State give them a shilling? No, the Act says that they themselves must either reduce benefits or levy upon their members. It is, "Heads I win, tails you lose "as far as the Government are concerned. That is the second Minister with whom I am dealing on the question of breach of faith. I come to the other side of the House—Mr. Bonar Law.

Sir K. WOOD: We have not got much of pledges so far.

Mr. THOMAS: The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, I suppose, does not count?

Sir K. WOOD: I said there was nothing definite in any of his statements.

Mr. THOMAS: At all events, the House must judge, and, if it does not, the country
will. I now come to Mr. Bonar Law, who said:
What I want to know is, are the contributions of a man for this special purpose of compulsory insurance to be available for any other purpose?
The reply of Sir Rufus Isaacs, then Attorney-General, now Lord Reading, was:
It is not available. Money which is provided for the State scheme is to be used for the State scheme, and no other purpose.
That satisfied Mr. Bonar Law, and he give it his blessing. I would quote again from Sir Rufus Isaacs, who said:
That surplus may be provided under the Bill to provide benefits which are granted to the members of that society. These benefits are circumscribed by one of the Schedules in the Bill.
Observe what follows:
The accumulated funds of the societies will be protected.
At that time there was a member of our party who took a very active part in our Debates and a keen interest in that Bill —the then Member for Attercliffe, Mr. Pointer. It shows how Parliament wanted to satisfy itself on this particular point, that all these questions were put. Mr. Pointer said:
It does appear to me that there is something in the argument that the surplus could be used outside the original intentions of the Act.

Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I quite appreciate what is in my hon. Friend's mind. What we say in regard to it is, that no part of the money shall be used for the purpose. We have always said that a society shall always be able to use the money set free for the purpose of giving additional benefits."
That, I submit, is the best and most conclusive evidence that this House can have of the pledge that was given. If the Government had conic down and said, "We admit these pledges; we admit that a promise was given; we admit that Members are entitled to expect an additional benefit, but, owing to the War, owing to the financial difficulties, owing to the magnificent way in which our Chancellor of the Exchequer spent his£40, 000, 000 surplus, we are in difficulties "—if they had said that straight-forwardly, there would at least be this answer to it, "It is a legitimate case. We can argue it on its merits."We would have fought it. But there was not one of these things. On the contrary,
they actually say, "No, this is not a breach of faith; this is a more scientific way—a sort of Maskelyne and Devant method."I say it is not only unfair, but those who are responsible will at least have to bear their own responsibility.
I want now to deal with the treatment that the approved societies receive, and compare it with the way in which they have helped the Government. Reference has been made to the difficulties we experienced owing to the threatened trouble with the doctors. Immediately the facts were put to the approved societies, they took the responsibility of saying, "The State is in a difficulty; we will help them out with their burden."That was their response. But when they acquiesced in that request, we promised them a Royal Commission, and now, having helped the State, having provided the money, having taken over a liability which they need not have taken over, and which, if they had forced our hand, we should have had to take over—although they acted in that way over the medical benefit when the doctors issued an ultimatum, and there was a difficulty between a strike and a lockout, the Government of the day, having to meet the difficulty, consulted them, and they readily accepted the responsibility. And this is the payment we are giving them ! This is the way in which the Government are returning evil for good. But hon. Members must make no mistake.
Even the laughs from the other side will not finish this question. The Government have introduced many Bills and there have been many Debates and many Divisions in which we on this side have opposed them. But let hon. Members make no mistake about it. When this Bill becomes law, if it does, and when the Budget operates, many of them will remember what I am now saying. When the approved societies, with the old friendly society spirit, and the trade unions, with their encouragement of thrift, and all the other people concerned find out how they have been treated, not even their loyalty to Toryism will blind them to this injustice. It may be that hon. Members opposite can afford to be indifferent at the moment, that they can afford to ignore these people, saying to them afterwards: "This was carried
through the House of Commons, "but I ask them to pause before they take the step. I hate a conflict. I have got into more trouble through pleading for peace than I have for advocating war. I have been abused and condemned more than enough for wishing to avoid a fight and a conflict, and I do not regret what I have done; but I am also a trustee for men. Under a Statute of Parliament, under solemn ministerial pledges, which I interpreted to these men, I said to them, "Join the society and the benefits to you will be so and so. Be thrifty and careful, and you will benefit as a result. Do your best to help the State in administering this great Act, and the benefits will be yours."Now I shall have failed in that trust, because the Government, by their action, deprive me of the opportunity of giving effect to those promises; and that is the position of everyone engaged in the administration of health insurance.
I ask the Committee to ponder before they take the step they are asked to take. What is the amount of money to be saved? Just under £3, 000, 000. The great Economy Bill provides £10, 000, 000 all told, every copper of which comes from the sick, the maimed, and the children, and, worst of all, from the unemployed. That stands out as the monument of the Government's' record in economy. No balancing of the Budget, no arguments about 5 per cent. and 3 per cent., no quibble that this is really not coming from the surplus at all, but something else, will blind the ordinary working man and woman. When that point is put to them they will say, "If you had not taken it, where would it be? "That is the question hon. Members will have to answer. Would it not be far more honest, not to say more decent, for hon. Members to go to their constituents and take their opinion. Would it not be more honest to vote for the Amendment, which will allow hon. Members an opportunity of saying, "I am in favour of the Economy Bill, but I do not want to penalise you until I have consulted you."That is all I ask in this Amendment. That will be the issue when this Division is taken. For these, and many other reasons that some of my hon. Friends will advance, I have pleasure in moving the Amendment, and, though I fully anticipate its fate, I know the ultimate verdict and judgment will
be determined not inside but outside the House.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I rise with very great pleasure to support the Amendment moved in a, very powerful and convincing speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas). I agree with him that the Minister really responsible for this outrage is not present to defend it. The real artful dodger is not here, and it has been left to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health to defend something which I think, in his heart, he must feel to be rather indefensible. I was very much amazed by the interruption of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on the question of pledges, when he suggested that the clear statements made by Ministers in charge of the Bill in 1911 did not constitute pledges. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] If that be so, I do not know the meaning of the word pledge. Yes, hon. Members may cheer that, but at the present moment they are supporting a breach of faith. I ask, What was the promise? What the proposals were was made perfectly clear in the statements of Ministers who introduced the Bill at that time. A certain minimum of benefit was to be given for the first 15 years. At the end of that time, if the societies were a success, if they had been administered well, it was clearly anticipated that they would be in a position to declare larger benefits. In fact, it was made perfectly clear that the benefits as laid down for the first few years were purely a minimum, and that the whole point and purpose of the Bill was to develop the benefits up to the point where they would have real substance for those who had contributed during those 15 years.
A long list of benefits was drawn up. They did not depend merely upon the statements of Ministers; they were put into the Act of Parliament. There was a schedule, consisting of a whole page or a page and a half, of the benefits which would be derived after the first few years' extra burdens had been wiped off. The 15 years have elapsed, and the time has come when the benefits are due, and when the money is there; but, as soon as the benefits are ready for distribution, the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, "I do not care what the promises were, I do not care, even, that I was a member of the Ministry which gave the pledge. I
want that cash to build cruisers, "and he deprives of those benefits the people who far all these years have been contributing on the faith of public declarations—sealed, signed and delivered—made by Statute of the Realm, signed by the Sovereign. They ore now to be taken away. It is the most gross breach of faith I have ever seen perpetrated by any Ministry.
I am told it is a question of economy. If the country were really hard pressed, and it was a question of £2, 000, 000 or A3, 000, 000 to extricate it from its difficulties, no one believes that the 15, 000, 000 workmen who are incorporated in these insurance societies would decline to consider it. If the Government had said, 'The old country is so hard pressed that we want £2, 800, 000 to save it from all its difficulties, "there is not a man who would have refused to consider it. That is not the position. We went through a great war when £2, 000, 000, 000 or £3, 000, 000, 000 a year had to be found, and when there was crushing taxation. I see the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just come in. It is about time he should stand up for the infamy in which he has landed his colleagues. For years we bore all those burdens, and no one came forward and said, "Because of these very heavy burdens, you must reduce health insurance or old age pensions."On the contrary, and I think it as one of the finest deeds I have seen in this House, old age pensions were doubled. I t is the finest thing standing to the record of this country. We increased the allowance for health insurance from 10s. to 15s., and maternity benefit was also increased. Now, when the burdens have decreased—they are down by £200, 000, 000 or £300, 000, 000 since 1920—and when the benefits under this scheme have matured, for the Government to come here and say they will take away this £2, 800, 000, well, a promise of marriage is broken very often for motives of economy, and sometimes it may be a genuine motive, but all the same it is regarded as disreputable amongst the best people; and, where a pledge of this kind is concerned, the least the Government could have done was to have gone to the people to whom the pledges were given and said to them, "Will you relieve us of our pledges? We cannot possibly go on without this extra £2, 800, 000."The Government might have
asked them; but they never were really asked. There was a sham, a fraudulent consultation with a committee which had been set up. It was like going to a friend and saying, "I want to have your advice, "after you had already done what you were asking his opinion upon. I do not believe your friend would be on speaking terms with you after that, if he discovered what had happened, and I do not believe the approved societies will henceforth be on speaking terms with the right hon. Gentleman. He will find it very difficult to do business with them—unless he keeps clear of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My right hon. Friend dealt with cases where the approved societies are at the present time borrowing, especially the small struggling societies, which include a number of people who are not in very healthy occupations.
But let me put another case to the Minister of Health. Take the cases where approved societies have done well that under the first valuation they have been in a position to declare additional benefits. There are cases of that kind where additional benefits have been granted. I will give him a case. Take the case of the agricultural labourers. On the whole, they are a healthy body of men. They do not draw to the same extent from the society as people living and working under worse health conditions. What is the result? The result is that they have been able to save money, and some of these societies have declared increased benefits. I could give the right hon. Gentleman the case, for instance, of a Scottish society declaring increased benefits after the valuation of 1921; an increase of sickness benefit to 22s. 6d., and of disablement benefit of 11s. 6d. I am assured by those responsible for that society that the result of the present proposal will be that in order to be in a solvent condition they will have to reduce these increased benefits. You may, of course, draw upon surplus funds. You may be able by that to tide over a year, or two, or three years, but in the end, unless you refill the reservoir you cannot go on paying these increased benefits. What is the result? These men who have a low wage, but who have got this advantage from the fact that they are pursuing a healthy avocation, will be deprived of benefits which they are now enjoying, and the
right hon. Gentleman says be has not broken faith! It is a gross breach of faith with the members of the societies!
By the way, may I tell him that one of these federated societies is the Conservative Benefit Society. I should be very interested to know how the Conservative Member for that constituency will explain to this Conservative Benefit Society why he is voting for this Bill that robs the society of benefit for which the members have already paid. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman—and now that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is here, I especially ask him—does he really think this is worth while? Here is something with which we went through the War, and went through the post-War period, without reducing any of the benefits. On the contrary, we increased them. I ask: Is it worth while now, in order to save what is equivalent to ½d. on the Income, Tax, to deprive workmen of the benefits to which they were looking forward for the last 10 or 15 years, and especially at a time when there is so much industrial trouble brewing? Is it a desirable thing? Is it a wise thing to do? Will it not cost the Exchequer itself a good deal more in the end?
The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that when you come to consider a problem of this kind you cannot, whatever you do, ensure equality of all the conditions of life. I do not believe that any political party that ever advanced that proposition, that by any legislation you could carry, by any scheme of things you could develop, you could equalise the conditions of life for everybody. It is essential you should ensure the essentials of life to all classes of the community—good food, shelter, provision for medical benefit in the case of health, raiment, decent education—

Mr. THURTLE: Good wages!

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: They would he included. I am interpreting the matter now in the terms of the essentials of life. I think anything beyond that is a fair gamble with life which all classes are prepared to face. These essentials we ought to ensure to all those who conform to the rules of any fair and decent society. It is the business of the State to see that these essentials are procured. We have been gradually working up to-
wards that. We have by no means reached it, but we were gradually working up to it, and I think it is to the honour of this country that we did not cease to work up to it in spite of the War. What will be the responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that whilst we were getting along and going towards it, whilst we were going to take a great step forward in the year 1920—because this is the time these matters were due—when we are going to increase benefits or make them adequate and get somewhat nearer, that he thrust the whole thing back?
We are going back not merely upon the Ministry of which he was a member, but upon what has been done by every succeeding Ministry. I ask him: "Is it worth while? "I know perfectly well the burdens of the community are great. I know the fact that we are going through very severe trade depression. There is a gradual improvement, but possibly this may take time. There is no week but what the Government say that the unemployed figures are going down and down by 10, 000, 20, 000, 30, 000. If they really believe that cannot they have enough faith to wait for the prosperity which they say is coming instead of robbing the poor of their £2, 800, 000. If they suspended the building of cruisers for three years—

Mr. WALLHEAD: One.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: One! I think the hon. Member is right. One only. If they suspended the building of a cruiser they would more than meet the money required over the three years, and in the three years the country would be recovering. When prosperity returns and the revenue returns go up the right hon. Gentleman, or whoever it is who occupies the post of Chancellor of the Exchequer, will be able to meet the liability and probably to decrease taxation very considerably. What are the risks he will be running in these three years comparable to the risk he is running now by asking the working population of this country to feel that they cannot trust British institutions to keep faith with them? I have been reminded that when in 1909 I was introducing my Budget with a view to financing old age pensions, and especially unemployment insurance and
health insurance, I was charged with robbing hen roosts. That was the favourite charge. At any rate, I went where there were many eggs to spare and they were all in well-feathered and well-defended nests. I did not go prowling round the working man's backyard or when he was sick in bed to rob him of the few eggs that he had left to him. That would have been a mean thing to do. I ask the Government really that they should have faith in the good will of the people of this country. It will be a great boast when we have got through —and we are getting through slowly—and I have every confidence that we will get t through—I have never doubted but that in the end we will pull through—when we have got a better Government—at any rate I think we shall pull through, will it not be a fine boast in those circumstances for the Minister of Health and for his colleagues, for the House of Commons, for the ruling classes—as they are called in this country—so be able to say that through all this long lane of depression they got through without ever breaking into the hospital boxes, without in the least starving the social services, without depressing in the slightest degree or slackening in the slightest degree the efforts they were making to improve the conditions of the working people of this country, who are our fellow citizens?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The two speeches to which we have listened have come from such important and distinguished Members of the House that I think it would not be courteous on my part not to reply at once, if it be possible for me to say what I have to say between now and a quarter-past eight. The two right hon. Gentlemen have this in common, that they have a like facility for changing their ground. One is rather reminded of that picturesque and hirsute animal that walks in front of the Welsh regiments. We have been again reminded that this is a question of a bargain and of a breach of faith. Never have I been able to understand either from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) or the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) what was exactly the bargain which they say we have broken. I have read over and over again the original speech of my right hon. Friend, and
although the words are there on the Paper, I have been unable to find any definition of the terms of contract which it is asserted we have broken. The hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) spoke on the Consolidated Fund Bill. As he has had less experience, he is more precise. These are his words:
The fraction fixed in 1911 was the basis upon which the whole structure of the finance of that Bill was built. Whatever else was varied, the two-ninths was intended to be constant."—-[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1926; col. 1409, Vol. 193.]
8.0 P.M.
There is a definite statement, and what I understood the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs himself to maintain when I first listened to him. The original fraction was not two-ninths for both men and women, but for men only. He himself altered the original fraction for women from one-quarter to two-ninths. While the hon. and learned Member for South Shields spoke, I think the recollection of those observations came into his mind, and he changed his ground again. He said that what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lloyd George) had done when he was Prime Minister.
was not to take feathers from the pillow of either the man or the woman, but to put more feathers into the pillows of both, and at the same time as he was doing that he said: 'Let us have uniformity, and, since we are making the pillow softer and bigger, let us see that the same number of feathers in each are plucked from the Government pigeon.'"—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 25th March, 1926; col. 1410, Vol. 193.]
Let us see where the hon. and learned Member for South Shields takes us. He says "my right hon. Friend in his amending Act increased the benefits, and he increased the contributions from the employer and employed. He decreased the proportion of the benefits that were to be paid by the State, but that is not a breach of faith ", so his argument goes on, as I understood his argument, "because, as a matter of fact, the actual amount of money contributed to the State was greater after the alteration that it was before."Can I fix the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs to that? So long as the contribution from the State is at least as great as it was when the scheme was originally constructed and the bargain made with the approved societies, there is no breach of faith?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There were two factors in 1920. I have made inquiries since I was interrupted by the right hon. Gentleman in the last Debate. The Bill was introduced by his predecessor. There was an increase in the actual contribution of the State and there has been ever since, because though the proportion was less it was the proportion of a larger sum, and therefore, the actual contribution of the State was higher than it was before and has been ever since. He did not explain that to the House at the time. That was done with the approval of the societies, who were consulted, and naturally they approved because it was giving them more money.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am very disappointed. The right hon. Gentleman did not answer my question. He gave me a very long answer, but he has not answered my question.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I gave my right hon. Friend the facts which he withheld from the House.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Really, if the argument of the hon. and learned Member for South Shields meant anything at all, it meant that as long as the State contributed as much money as it contracted to do when the original bargain was made, there was no breach of faith. In the proposals of the Bill the contribution from the State will be very considerably more than the estimated contribution of the State at the time.

Mr. HARNEY: The right hon. Gentleman very fairly endeavoured to put my argument, but he did not do so correctly. My argument was that the fractional amount of two-ninths was the basis on which the specific contributions to bring about the benefit was calculated. At no time until now has any attempt been made to take out of the fund any of the money that arises from that fraction.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think really I should like to make a statement to the Committee of what I think about this two-ninths from my study of the question. This two-ninths was not a guess work or arbitrary fraction, but the result of careful calculation. What was the basis in 1911? The hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive my saying that although he every now and then intervenes to give
the Committee a new explanation of something he thinks they have not understood, he very frequently further confuses them. He explained to us on one occasion recently that the contributions originally fixed for a person entering the scheme at 16 had to be larger than would have been required if the benefits which he stood to gain were to be maintained in order that those persons who enter the scheme over that age might still not be required to pay more than the flat rate of contribution. That is not so. The original contribution was fixed at that amount which was equivalent to the benefits of a person entering the scheme at 16. Those who entered the scheme over the age of 16 were provided for by the State. The particular form in which the State contribution was to be paid does not really matter, but it was decided for convenience in the form of a proportion of the benefits. That fraction of two-ninths was calculated in order to make the difference between what the person would have to pay at 16, and what the other people would have to pay to get the same benefits. The basis of the scheme is that a person who enters the scheme at. 16 should not be called on to pay more than the value of the benefits.
Under the original scheme the contribution was 7d. and the benefit 7d. Under the Act of 1920 the contribution was raised to 10d., but the benefits were also raised—to 10½7d., and therefore I personally can credit right hon. Gentlemen with no breach of faith. Persons entering the scheme at 16, paying 10d., receive benefits worth 10½7d., whereas it was originally decided that benefits should be exactly equal to contributions.
What has happened since? As a result of the Pensions Act the contribution was reduced to 9d., but benefits were reduced only to the value of 10½d. Therefore, you have the position that under the scheme, if we made no alterations in the State contribution, people would actually be receiving benefits worth three halfpence more than their contributions. This result, which I have described to the Committee, is disclosed by the Report of the Actuarial Committee. Until we had the Report of the Actuarial Committee and the Report of the Royal Commission —which had received and considered that Report of the Actuarial Committee—it was impossible to say what reconstruction
was possible and feasible. But, it is quite a mistake to suppose that this reconsideration and review of the whole scheme of National Health Insurance arises solely out of the need of economy. It would have had to be reviewed in any case. The original scheme was merely experimental. There was no experience to guide the House or the country as to what would be the result of the scheme, and, of course, it has been necessary—and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs pointed it out—that there should be amendments to the scheme in all sorts of ways, and this is the first time there has been a full review of the whole scheme, as we find in the Report of the Royal Commission.
In any case, we were bound to review the financial basis of the scheme at this time and make some alteration in it. The investigation showed that there was a margin in the contributions over and above what was required to provide the benefits under the existing category. The margin was greater than what was necessary even to provide the additional benefits distributed already. The Royal Commission, while disclaiming any duty to say whether or not that margin should be taken by the State on which they were not competent to speak showed there was a margin, and on the assumption that it was not to be taken by the State they made certain recommendations. The first of those recommendations was that the full cost of medical benefit should fall on the funds of the approved societies. That is, of course, embodied in the present Bill. There will remain a further sum which the Royal Commission recommended should be used in a certain way for an extension of sickness benefit. That is the sum which, under this Bill, we are taking because of the needs of the country. The needs of the country are not going to be satisfied by £2, 800, 0000 a year, but in taking a general view of the financial needs of the country, looking round to every Department and every source to see what could possibly be saved and what reductions in expenditure can be made, we should not have done our duty if we had neglected to consider the Report of the Royal Commission, and the opportunity afforded us to take some of the margin.

It being a Quarter-past Eight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

Orders of the Day — MEDWAY CONSERVANCY BILL (By Order).

Mr. LOUGHER: I beg to move,
That it he an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Clause 3.
I wish to express my regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) is not present to take part in this Debate. There is a growing tendency on the part of dock authorities to include Clauses in their Private Bills which give them statutory powers in excess of the common law. It is probably in the public interest that this should be so, more especially as far as the users of the ports are concerned. The shipowners or shipmasters when they go to particular ports do not know what the laws are which govern those ports. It is true to say that there are several port authorities already possessing these powers, but there are many others that have no powers of this kind, and the difficulty arises that the shipmasters do not really know how they stand with regard to the laws affecting these different ports. The primary object of this Bill, as set out by the promoters, is to be able to recover costs against an owner in a case where a wreck has occurred in excess of the present statutory limits. The present limits are that the Port Authority can only recover to the value of the wreck, and if the wreck is caused by the negligence of the master or the officers of the ship, they can recover against the owner to the statutory limit of £8 per ton. The promoters of this Bill contend that the owners should be liable for any expense in connection with the wreck in excess of the statutory limit which now exists. Of course, this cuts directly across a very important principle which has engaged the attention of those concerned for the last 20 years, and it has led to the establishment of an international arrangement or agreement with
regard to the unification of these laws, and also for the limitation of the shipowners' liability. In 1923 an agreement was arrived at in connection with the Brussels Convention, and amongst the signatories to the Convention itself is that of Great Britain. This Convention will unify the maritime laws in all countries and will place British shipping for the first time on a similar footing to foreign shipping. This Clause, which has been introduced by the Medway Conservancy, cuts across that arrangement, and holds this country up to ridicule in foreign countries, because we have been advocating a unification of maritime laws. Whilst we have no objection to the Medway Conservancy or the Bristol Port Authority protecting themselves against the risks incurred by wreckage which they have to raise and remove, because that is quite reasonable, the question is whether they should provide for these risks themselves or whether they should pass them on, as they desire now, to the shipowner. I suggest that they should insure against these risks themselves.

Mr. MACKINDER: Who should insure?

Mr. LOUGHER: The Harbour Authority.

Mr. MACKINDER: Not the shipowners?

Mr. LOUGHER: No; the Harbour Authority can measure the risk by the number of ships entering the harbour, but to pass that same risk on to the shipowner would mean that all shipping would have to insure themselves against the risks without knowing the dangers of the harbour.

Mr. MACKINDER: Do the shipowners propose to recompense the authorities?

Mr. LOUGHER: I am trying to explain that the port authorities can cover the risk because they can measure the amount of the liability, and they know, approximately, how many vessels are coming into their harbour and they can insure against the risk. If you ask the shipowner to insure, all shipowners will have to insure against the risk of going to certain ports, although in some cases the risk may be very remote, and consequently you are casting upon a
large industry the cost of insurance which ought to be borne by the port authority. I do not for a moment suggest that the authority should not pass on, as they undoubtedly will, the cost of the insurance to the shipping that comes to that port. That would be perfectly fair and equitable, because it would mean that the tonnage using the particular port would pay for the particular risks attaching to it. But what I want to lay particular stress upon is the fact that the port authorities entered into a bargain in 1913 with the shipping authorities for the limitation of the liability of shipowners. It was during the passage of the Pilotage Bill through this House, and at that time, in the case of compulsory pilots, the liability in respect of damage done to vessels or to wrecks attached to the pilots. The bargain was that the shipowners would relieve the pilots—it is the compulsory pilots of whom I am now speaking—of their liability, and would assume that liability themselves, in consideration of the port and harbour authorities accepting the principle of the limitation of liability.
That was a very great concession to the port and harbour authorities at the time, because any damage done to a port or harbour where compulsory pilotage was in vogue would only be recoverable against the pilot himself, and, with all due respect, the pilot would not be of sufficient financial standing to stand claims of that kind which might be made against him. Therefore, for the shipowners to assume that liability was a very great concession to the port and harbour authorities. That arrangement I will confirm by reference to a discussion which took place on the Pilotage Bill itself. If one refers to the OFFICIAL REPORT of the 5th February, 1913, one finds that during the passage of the Pilotage Bill the hon. and learned Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Sir L. Scott) said:
I may just say that the shipowners of this country say we want to come to an arrangement with regard to the limitation of liability, so that we may have the same law and be put on the same footing as our foreign competitors. They want us to give up the defence of compulsory pilotage, and we say we will do it if they will agree to a limitation of liability."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th February, 1913; col. 2347, Vol. 47.]
Following that, the President of the Board of Trade at the time, Mr. Buxton, said:
It was suggested in various quarters that some compromise might be made, and considerable negotiations took place, and the parties expressed their willingness among themselves to allow this suspensory Clause for a period of five years to be inserted, but that it should come into operation at an earlier time if an international agreement was reached."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th February, 1913; col. 2351, Vol. 47.]
The meaning of this suspensory Clause was that, in consideration of the dock authorities agreeing to fall into line with the International Convention—and the Convention was practically agreed upon at that time, though it had not reached the stage of completion—that Clause of the Pilotage Act, giving relief in the case of compulsory pilotage, should be suspended for a period of five years, so as to allow this International Convention to be ratified in the meantime. What really happened, however, was that the War broke out, and the negotiations in connection with the Convention were suspended; but, as a matter of fact, the Pilotage Act came into actual force in 1918, thereby completing the bargain from the shipowners' side, though the Convention proposals were held in suspense until 1923. The Convention has been signed by most of the maritime Powers, including Great Britain, so that it will be seen that there was a complete bargain with regard to the limitation of liability. I was very much surprised, when attending a conference a few days ago at the Board of Trade, to be told by the representatives of the dock authorities that they had no idea we were going to raise this question of principle in objection to the Clauses to which I am now referring, but that is the very essence of our objection.
We have no objection to the Medway authority protecting themselves, but we take very serious objection to cutting across the International Convention in the manner in which these Clauses do. I say at once that it is a breach of faith on the part of the dock owners and port authorities to promote these Clauses to which we are taking exception. The proper course is to allow the law to stand as it is now, and for them to cover themselves by insurance as I have already indicated. By so doing, they will not interfere with this Convention,
to which we attach so very much importance, and they will not need to come to the House of Commons for such powers as they now seek. I trust that the attitude of the President of the Board of Trade in regard to this matter will be made clear. I believe that he is intensely interested in this Brussels Convention, and that he desires to see it ratified, so as to bring about the results indicated. I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman is in his place to-night, and I trust that, so far as the question which is now before the House is concerned, he will give expression to his views, which. I rather anticipate will be in the direction of preserving at all events the excellent work that has been already done by those who have been responsible for bringing the Convention to its present state. I trust that the House will give the necessary instructions to the Committee to delete these Clauses.

Mr. SANDEMAN ALLEN: I beg to second the Motion.
I regret very much that, owing to the unavoidable absence of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Exchange Division (Sir L. Scott) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman), I am compelled to present the case in supporting what my hon. Friend has said. The House is entitled to know why this comes before them in the form of an instruction rather than leaving it to be settled by the Committee upstairs. Of course, if it were an ordinary question the proper course would be to send it to be settled by the Committee, but many of us feel the matter raises one or two vital principles on which the House should pass judgment, after realising what is the true position. While speaking absolutely from one's own convictions after studying the facts, I am also expressing the views of the trading interests of the country. The Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the Federation of British Industries, the Mansion House Association on Railway and Canal Traffic, the Chamber of Shipping, the Liverpool Steamship Association and Committee of Lloyds—there is a solid and substantial body of public commercial opinion, and, I am sure, whatever decision the House in its wisdom may arrive at, it would like to know what
that opinion is. Clause 3, which is practically the Bill, deals with the raising and recovery and removal of wrecks. It is obvious that the fairway must be kept clear. It is obviously right that any dock authority or conservancy should have full power to deal with the removal of any obstruction, and no one in his senses would object to any such power being given, but the law of the country is quite clear, that if such a calamity as an obstruction of this kind occurs the liability for its removal falls, in the first instance, upon the owner of the property up to the value of the wreck, and where the wreck has occurred through the negligence of the shipowner or his agent, he is liable to an additional cost over and above the proceeds of the wreck up to the amount of his legal liability as limited by law—that is the value of the vessel, calculated at £8 per ton register.
In the case of a foreign-owned vessel there is no limit beyond the value of the wreck, except possibly by the arrest of a ship of the same owner should it happen to come to that port. Those who have had to deal with this question for 30 or 40 years know how illusory that prospect is. So long as the authority is content to accept the rights given it by the law of the land, no one can take exception, but what one takes exception to very strongly is that they should want a good deal more. There are four points to which attention should he called. Firstly, we hold that no private parties should, by a private Bill, be entitled to extend the liability or privilege of an individual beyond what is laid down in the law of the land to the injury of third parties. Secondly, the admission of such special terms is destructive of the principle of uniformity of law and practice which has for a generation at least been the object of all who are interested in the commerce and shipping of the country and the international trade as a whole. It is, therefore, a denial of the position taken up by the Government and business men of the country for some time past. Thirdly, we are in the act of concluding an international Convention dealing with this very question of shipowners' liability for damage and loss. I have not overlooked the fact that the Convention contains a reservation put in specially in order that the question should be thoroughly ven-
tilated and dealt with. My last reason is that the effect of the Clause is to place an entirely innocent party in a much worse position than if he had been guilty of negligence.
My first point is that private enterprise is entitled to the same legal rights as any other, but it is not entitled to immunity if it inflicts injuries on other members of the community. We have heard a great deal recently about private enterprise. Many of us feel that private enterprise and the interest and welfare of the community should go hand in hand, and, if necessary, be yoked togeher. But when you come to one body being granted special privileges to the injury of a third party, we think that is not fair. The argument has been raised that the dues are not sufficient to cover risks of this kind. The answer to that is quite simple. If the user is guilty of obstruction, let him pay. If not, the usual business course is open. Either arrange a fund or arrange for insurance. But why saddle an innocent party? Again I hear people say—I have heard it said recently on this subject—"but it is his ship that has caused the obstruction. It. is his cargo that has caused the obstruction.' The ship has railway material on board. Are you going to charge the innocent cargo owner with the cost of removing the rail, and if not, why are you going to charge the innocent shipowner Instead of rushing a Bill of this kind through, these matters ought to be carefully considered, in justice to all concerned.
When one hears talk about a clock company or a conservancy not having sufficient means, I would remind the House that in the case of foreign ships there is no chance of recovery beyond the value of the wreck unless by happy chance another ship belonging to the same owner can be arrested. This must be provided for by the dock authority. Then again, British shipowners are not all solvent for ever, and in the Medway they are accustomed to small sailing ships. Some small sailing ship owners may perhaps be on their last legs, and one has to remind the House that the conservancy has to provide for the insolvency of the owner. The dock authority therefore must make provision in certain cases. Why should an attempt be made to saddle an innocent party with a liability which could well be provided for through the
normal business channels by the conservancy doing its proper work and insuring its risks as the shipowners do?
Sentiment is all very well, but we have to deal with what is fair and sound in the lax and practice regarding these matters and to maintain our reputation as a great maritime nation. On the question of uniformity, I expect to hear some hon. Members say, "What is the use of taking that line, when other ports in the Kingdom have managed to get some clause of this kind."Yes, but how? They did it without the fact being noticed at the time. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who is to blame?"] I dare say we are to blame. I am speaking as a member of a trading community who did not watch these things as it does to-day. We see the danger now.

Mr. MACKINDER: Who is meant by "we "?

Mr. ALLEN: The Association of Chambers of Commerce—the business men of the country. I have nothing directly to do with ship owning, except that I represent them as Chairman of the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce. Liverpool has not a Clause of this kind. Cardiff has not a Clause of this kind, nor has Southampton, and probably 100 smaller ports have not such a, Clause. Liverpool, Cardiff and Southampton port authorities might well take the view, "Why should we not have a Clause like this, if the Medway authority have one?"The whole point that we are standing for in this matter is that we must have something like uniformity. We must guard against the promoters of private Bills having differently worded Clauses, so that ship owners and others concerned do not know where they are when they go in and out of the different ports.

Mr. MACKINDER: Before the hon. Member leaves that point—

Mr. ALLEN: I have not left it yet.

Mr. MACKINDER: I should like to know, for clearness sake—ߞ

Mr. ALLEN: Will the hon. Member let me finish the point? For the last 10 or 20 years we have been striving to get some uniformity in this country and in other countries with respect to the vital matter of shipowners' liability.

Mr. MACKINDER: Is it not a fact that Liverpool has the power to remove wrecks? Under what terms of an Act of Parliament have they that power?

Mr. ALLEN: Yes; the Liverpool Port Authority has that power. It has power immediately an obstruction comes into the river to take possession and to do everything to remove the wreck. I know that as an underwriter many times I have tried to get the Dock Board to see my view, that we could do it more cheaply and save money. The Liverpool Port Authority has the power to deal with a wreck and to charge the owners of the property up to the extent of the value of the property, and if they have been negligent up to the extent of their liability as limited by law.

Mr. MACKINDER: I understood the hon. Member to say that Liverpool wanted to get this power, but could not get it. Now I understand him to say that Liverpool has it.

Mr. ALLEN: I did not say that. What Liverpool, no doubt, would like to have is a Clause like the Medway Clause, putting the whole burden on the shipowner, whether he be guilty or innocent. That is what they might like; but perhaps I am wrong in saying that that is what Liverpool would like. People like to get something for nothing, even hon. Members opposite.

Mr. MACKINDER: No.

Mr. ALLEN: I have already mentioned the point as to the International Convention, and I will say nothing further on that. I would ask hon. Members opposite, who are as desirous as we are to grasp the position, which is a very technical one, and to do justice, to follow my argument on this point. On the question of limitation of liability, the shipowner is responsible for the cost of removing the wreck providing it has resulted from his negligence. That is the present law. This Clause goes further. It says whether he is guilty or innocent, whether he is negligent or not, he is to have the burden thrust upon him. At the present time the guilty shipowner—I call him guilty if the accident has happened through the negligence of his servants—is responsible to the extent of a liability of £8 per ton. If he is not guilty and he has not been negligent, then he is responsible without limitation
We think that it is an absurd and unjust anomaly that the man who is not responsible for the accident is liable to pay more than the man who is guilty and responsible for an accident.
When the thing is carefully studied it will be seen how unsound the practice is. I cannot understand why business men do not accept the position that if their man is responsible they should pay; but if not, let the man take his chance like anyone else. We are dealing with the law of mercantile shipping in these matters, and we must remember that this country for many years past has wisely realised that we must watch carefully the interests of our overseas trade and our shipping. We have realised that if we are to do that and to encourage people to build ships and to work ships, there must be a certain amount of limitation of their liability. The businesslike way would be to leave the matter as we suggest, and I very deeply regret that the promoters of the Bill do not see their way to accept our suggestion and be put in the same position as Liverpool, Cardiff, Southampton and the leading ports of the country.

Mr. ATTLEE: Can the hon. Member say what will be the position of the harbour authorities without this Clause? Will they only have to pay when they have been negligent, or will they have to pay any way?

Mr. ALLEN: We are not discussing the question of the harbour authorities having to pay, but what they have to collect.

Sir GERALD HOHLER: I hope to prove my case quite clearly and very shortly. The instruction which has been moved would kill the Bill, and I support the Bill. The House is asked to kill the Bill. What is it that the Bill asks? In cases of wrecks the Conservators of the River Medway are charged with the duty of keeping the navigation clear, removing wrecks and doing dredging work. For that purpose they are entitled to make certain charges upon the craft using the river. They work on the basis of no profits. They must limit their charges merely to the recovery of their expenses. What is asked for in the Clause under discussion is that, whether by negligence or not or whatever the cause, if a vessel is
wrecked or becomes a wreck in the River Medway, the owner of that vessel shall be at the expense of removing it. I should have thought that anything fairer it would be difficult to state. Of course the river is a highway. I do not suppose that anyone doubts the truth of the proposition that the man who obstructs a highway on land has to remove the obstruction at his expense.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Suppose he is run down by a motor.

Sir G. HOHLER: It is equally true in that case. My hon. and learned Friend will be able to deny it if he thinks otherwise. If he were run down by a motor car and killed, his executors would be liable to move the obstruction. We ask that the same law shall apppy in reference to the highway of the river. We have in our Act of 1881 a Clause similar to that which is now being discussed. By that Clause we are able, where there is a wreck, to remove it at the expense of the owner. We have the right to remove it, to sell the wreck for what it will fetch, and to charge the owner with any excess of cost over what we may have received from the sale of the wreck. At any rate so I am instructed. I think it is Section 121 of the Act of 1381. I was surprised when my hon. Friends said that such a Clause was new, especially as the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion said he was an underwriter. Suppose the owner of the wreck abandons to the underwriter, and then the underwriter says "I cannot recover."The owner ought to pay just a little further premium to the underwriter in order to cover that risk. It could easily be done. I am speaking as a conservator.
We ask the House to say that the owner cannot escape liability by giving notice of abandonment. That is a most just provision. Let it go upstairs and be discussed, and let counsel on both sides argue it. I ask for nothing more than that. In the absence of a lawyer on the other side, I am not going to argue now that I am right, but in my view of the law I wholly disagree with what has been said on the other side. However, these matters can be argued upstairs by authorities. In my view in regard to a wreck, there is no question of limitation of liability of any sort or kind. I submit that this is a most
reasonable Clause. It is merely intended to get rid of a very clever device—leaving me with a wreck which I have to get out at the expense of all the other shipowners who use the river, while the owner of the wreck escapes his liability. The greatest port in this country and in the world, the Port of London, has such a Clause. I could give a long list of other ports, Hull amongst the number, which have such a Clause. In fact it is a common Clause in such Bills as this. If Liverpool has not got it, I have no doubt that they ought to get it, and we should be glad to see them have it.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. SHORT: I rise to oppose the Motion, because I wish to support the Bill as it stands and also the Bristol Corporation Bill. I understand that the provisions now being sought by the Medway are similar to those included in the Bristol Corporation Bill, and I take it that the decision of the House on this Bill will settle the issue also on the Bristol Corporation Bill. I observe that the promoters of the Medway Bill constitute an elective body which is not a profit-making concern, and they seek to maintain the Medway for the benefit of traders and shippers. The Bristol Corporation is a public body responsible for the maintenance of one of the chief ports of the Kingdom. Millions have been invested it the Bristol undertaking.

Mr. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Member allow me to ask the House whether it is agreed that, as far as this issue is concerned the one discussion will cover the two Bills. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed ! "]

Mr. SHORT: I was saying that millions have been invested in the Bristol undertaking, and millions have been expended in the development of the port, in creating additional storage accommodation, in the installation of more efficient equipment and in other ways, in order to meet the increasing trade of the port. Who is responsible for the management of this undertaking? I observe that the Seconder of the Motion said fie was speaking for the Chambers of Commerce and similar organisations. In the case of Bristol—as also in the case of the Medway—the docks committee is responsible for the harbour undertaking. The docks committees are elected by the city councils, and these bodies are seeking
powers to enable them more effectively to cope with certain difficulties which confront them. The success of the port of Bristol is a monument to the courage, skill, intelligence and foresight of those responsible for the undertaking. Men have sat upon this docks committee, not belonging to the Labour party, not believing in Socialist principles, but members of the trading community, and, indeed, of the Conservative party, and it is men who have sat on this committee for 30 years who have intimate knowledge of the needs and requirements of the port of Bristol, who are seeking these increased powers to deal with the raising and removal of wrecks. The same remark applies in the case of the Medway. The fact that this proposal comes from men of such character, standing and experience should invite the House to give it serious consideration. We know that when bodies of this character take a progressive line, they meet with severe opposition from vested interests such as has been indicated in this case. The House would be well advised to listen to the voice of the Bristol authority and to the voice of the Medway authority who are inspired by a desire to meet public needs, rather than be moved by the artificial record, shall I say, of the Chambers of Commerce, the Federation of British Industries, the Liverpool Steam-owners Association and bodies of a like character.

Mr. HANNON: What does the hon. Member mean by "the artificial record "!

Mr. SHORT: The gramophone record. The hon. Member should understand me. He knows that at any rate the demands of Bristol and the Medway in this matter are inspired by a regard for public interests, and not by a regard for vested interests. One or two peculiar arguments have been used in this discussion. As I understand the legal position, under the Harbours, Docks and Ports Act of 1847, authority is given to these bodies to deal with wrecks. What has arisen out of that law? It is possible for the owner of a wreck to abandon it and give formal notice that he is doing so. Then the responsibility of removing it falls upon the harbour authority and that authority is unable to recover the deficiency, if any, arising when the wreck has been removed. What is the alternative? The alternative
which has been put forward is to leave things as they are. There is no new principle involved in this claim of Bristol and the Medway. The power which they seek has been given to between 17 and 20 harbour and dock undertakings in this country, and that which has been found useful for such undertakings might reasonably be extended to Bristol and the Medway.
I do not believe that decent shipowners would pursue the policy of abandoning wrecks but if indecent shipowners do so, and throw the financial responsibility on the dock authority it culminates in increased dues and handicaps the promotion of trade. Thus, in the interests of decent shipowners and of commercial morality we should see that the owners of these wrecks face their financial responsibilities, pay for the cost of removal and meet, the deficiency, if there should be one, as there frequently is one. During the dockers' inquiry known as the Shaw inquiry, evidence was not lacking as to the difficulties and obstacles in the way of free transport and rapid handling of our goods at the ports. Organised labour which is supporting the Bristol Bill and I believe is also supporting the Medway Bill has sought, through its officials, notably through Mr. Ernest Bevan and my hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Gosling) and others to remove those difficulties. There have been cases in which navigation has been impeded by wrecks, left lying for long periods, saddling the authority with cost and leading ultimately, as I have said, to increased dues. When a progressive authority seeks powers to improve the facilities of a port, to bring about increased employment and a general improvement in the condition of the workers in the ports, the House ought not to hesitate to give those powers. I trust therefore the House will reject this Motion because I believe these powers to be necessary in the interests of our harbour undertakings and for the improvement of the trade and commerce of our ports.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: I rise to support the Motion, and I do so at the desire of the Corporation of Lloyd's, of which body I have been a member for a good many years. In the first instance,
I take exception to a private Bill of this nature upsetting a public law. I speak with all deference in the presence of my hon. and learned Friends, but I understand the Bill seeks to set up a special law in certain ports which would not otherwise apply. It is true that roughly one-half of the principal ports in the country, already have a Clause of this sort, but it is also to be remembered that a large number of other ports have not this Clause. Therefore, it is suggested that there is to be a Clause of this kind applying to three ports out of four right round the coast. That is most undesirable from the point of view of shipowners.

Sir G. HOHLER: I do not know if this is a point of Order, but I understand that my hon. Friends are willing that this Bill should go upstairs.

Mr. HANNON: I have been in consultation with my hon. Friends, and if you, Mr. Speaker, approve, we would like to conclude the Debate, in order that the Bill might be sent upstairs, without the Instruction which has been moved.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the Mover and Seconder will withdraw the Instruction, that course can be followed.

Mr. LOUGHER: I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL (By Order).

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move to leave out the word "now, "and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
I am sorry to say that an Instruction which I understood would be on the Paper with reference to this Bill, but which has nothing to do with the question that has just been disposed of, is not on the Paper. I am glad to be able to congratulate the hon. Members concerned in regard to the last question, on which I was prepared to support the shipping
interests, but another point altogether was to have been dealt with by an Instruction to leave out the Clauses of this Bill dealing with electricity, namely, Clauses 17 to 25. The Bristol Corporation have always been very enterprising in developing municipal electricity, and they are seeking powers now to build a new generating station for themselves, subject only to the consent of the Electricity Commissioners. They propose to put up a very large station on land outside the city, and the reasons which they put forward are that the water supply is inadequate within the city, and that, therefore, they have to go outside to this Portishead station. They propose to put up, not a power station merely, but a super-power station, of 120, 000 kilowatts, and after 33 years Bristol's own need of electricity, Bristol's load, is only 26 kilowatts. It is, therefore, a very remarkable proposal that they should put up this station with a power of generating 120, 000 kilowatts, and, naturally, however rapidly Bristol may be growing, the suspicion has been brought home to certain interests that this station is required for territory outside the confines of the city, or its probable suburbs, or those satellite towns or residential or even manufacturing districts, that might properly be considered as belonging to the city, which it would be right for the city to supply with electricity.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): If the hone and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) will allow me to interrupt, I think he is misinformed. I understand him to say that the Bristol Corporation are seeking powers to put up a station. What the corporation are seeking, however, is that, if and when the Electricity Commissioners give them permission to erect a station, they should then be able to use this land at Portishead, and certain wayleaves which they have, for the purpose of erecting that station. This Bill does not give them power to erect the station, but only to use certain land which they now possess, and have possessed for a number of years, for the purpose of building a station, if and when the Electricity Commissioners, or the Central Board, which may be instituted under the Electricity (Supply) Bill, give them power to do so.

Mr. HARDIE: May I ask whether, in view of the Electricity (Supply) Bill that is before the House, any decision come to to-day by the House on this Bristol Bill would be overridden by what might appear in the Electricity (Supply) Bill?

Colonel ASHLEY: This Bill, as I understand it, does not give power to erect any station of any sort, kind, or description. All that it does is to provide that, if and when permission is given to the Bristol Corporation to build a station, either by the Electricity Commissioners or, if the Electricity (Supply) Bill becomes law, the Central Board which that Bill sets up, then the corporation shall have power to use a bit of land, and certain wayleaves which they have, for the purpose of putting up a station. I understand that the Electricity Commissioners do not intend at the present moment to give any decision in the matter, owing to the Electricity (Supply) Bill which is now before the House.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not want to misrepresent the position. Clause 17 of the Bill we are now discussing, while allowing the corporation to use the lands described in the First Schedule, lays down that
provided that nothing in this Section shall relieve the corporation from the necessity for obtaining the consent of the Electricity Commissioners.
I quite admit that, but the point is that this is very much a case of putting the cart before the horse. We intend, under this Government and the grace of God, to reorganise the electrical supply of this country, or so the Minister of Transport would have us believe, and it is rather, I think, premature for this very estimable corporation to stake out this great claim, because that, I am going to show, is what they are doing, to put up this super-power station at this time. Once this Bill is passed—and it is a very large Bill, as hon. Members will be aware, containing 146 pages, and dealing with all sorts of questions, such as harbour rights, and so on—the corporation will have placed themselves in a privileged position as against the Electricity Commissioners, and in any case we do not know yet what the powers of the Electricity Commissioners are going to be when the Electricity (Supply) Bill emerges from the Standing Committee. I
think it would be very much better if these Clauses were postponed until we knew the exact powers of the Electricity Commissioners and what is left of the Bill when it has been subjected to the tender mercies—

Colonel ASHLEY: May I again interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman? I do not agree, apart from the merits of the case, that it is a sound policy to ask the Bristol Corporation to have two Bills. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is asking that they shall have two Bills, and that they shall not have power in this big Bill to use the land for certain purposes, hut wait till next year, and then come and have another Bill for this one purpose.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not think that is unreasonable at all, with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman. I think, on the other hand, it is not a very advisable proceeding to sandwich these electricity Clauses in this great omnibus Bill, especially as the electrical policy of the Government and of this House is not finally settled. That is a matter for this House and the Standing Committee, and I do not think I am going too far when I say that it is in a fluid condition, if I may so describe electricity or the policy concerning electricity. It would have been much better to have brought forward a separate Bill for this electrical undertaking, and not to attempt to use—I will not say the blunderbuss—the omnibus of this manifold clause Bill, to force this matter through Parliament. We, who are objecting to this attempt on the part of the corporation, are put in a rather difficult position because we do not wish to oppose the other Clauses of the Bill especially in view of the agreement that has just been come to.
Under the Government's own Electricity (Supply) Bill the new Central Electricity Board can acquire land for the purpose of generating stations, and there is no necessity for any electrical undertaker to come to Parliament. I think the Minister of Transport will agree that, once this Electricity Bill has passed, this extra expense will not be necessary. That being the case, I do not really see where the ease is made out for the corporation to ask for this special power to acquire land for this new station to be
set up when they will be able to acquire land without the Bill at all. No doubt the promoters of the Bill will say that the provision of this land for the station must be subject to the Electricity Commissioners as we have already heard that, having got the right to put up a power station, they have then got to come to the Electricity Commissioners for that purpose. I do not think it is quite fair that the Electricity Commissioners should have placed upon them the onus of again resisting the Bristol Corporation, once they have gone through the machinery of promoting a Bill upstairs, arguments having been heard, counsel briefed, and so on.
The company who are affected by these proposals is a private company known as the West Gloucestershire Power Company, and I shall be quite frank. Apart from the question of principle which I have already dealt with and apart from a number of other principles which I shall bring up, a number of people, who happen to be voters in my constituency—[Laughter.] I do not see why the Solicitor-General should treat this as a matter for jocularity. If he were a private person and had, in perfectly good faith, invested money in a power station for providing electricity, and then another corporation, say the Hull Corporation, came along and proposed to annex the territory in which a station had been built with his money, I do not think he would think it was such a laughing matter. Now the West Gloucestershire Power Company is a new undertaking, and they serve a territory further from the Bristol Channel. Bristol already supplies the electricity for a considerable area around Bristol. In between there is a territory not allocated, a kind of no-man's-land, and the suspicion is—of course, if he can assure us on this point it will be very satisfactory—that the great station being erected by Bristol is intended to supply electricity, not only in this no-man's land, but in the territory supplied already by this existing company. If it is not so, we ought to know the reason why Bristol, which to-day only needs 26, 000 kilowatts after years of endeavour, should require a station of 120, 000 kilowatts.
The matter will of course be resisted by the company. The wicked animal
attacked defends itself ! They have a right to a locus standi before the Parliamentary Committee. That is only right and proper. They will be able to argue this case before the Committee, but once this House passes the Second Reading of this Bill, the scales are weighted against the private company and in favour of the municipality. I therefore think that we are entitled to get some assurance, either from the Government or from the Solicitor-General, who is a distinguished citizen of Bristol and knows all the circumstances, or the hon. and gallant Gentleman who sits for the Everton Division of Liverpool (Colonel Woodcock) and used to sit for Bristol.

Colonel WOODCOCK: I never sat for Bristol.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I really thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman represented Bristol. He always spoke up for the interests of Bristol, and rightly as one of Bristol's distinguished sons. Perhaps he can give us an assurance. It will be said that the area to be served by this great power station is so far away from the rival power station that there is no fear of an absorption of this private company by the municipality. The declarations of some of the leading citizens of Bristol sent to hon. Members are very illuminating on this point. On the 1st January, 1926, Mr. Alderman Sennington, one of the prime movers in this grandiose electrifying scheme of the Severn Valley, which is opposed by a, very large section of the citizens of Bristol who are afraid of what they will be let in for said:
A separate area has been under consideration some five years. This is a Bristol scheme, having in mind a larger scheme.
What does that mean? Is it that the burgesses of Bristol really think that one day they will be empowered by the Electricity Commissioners to provide electricity for the whole of the Severn Valley I Is that the intention? If so, there is very good explanation of their action. I would ask the House to mark this, that the proposals of this Bill are really improper in view of the Government's electricity proposals, and that its Clauses were drafted and the scheme drawn up long before the Government's proposals were known. Without any loss of prestige or regrets, the corporation might well hold its hand a little and see what the Gov-
ernment's proposals are when the House has finished with them, and also what the Commissioners intend to do, because they will not be long in bringing out a matured scheme for the whole of the country. In the interests of the citizens of Bristol who will have to meet any loss, the House will be well advised in insisting on these Clauses being postponed to a later date. In the absence of any assurance so far on this point I feel bound to move the rejection of the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel GADIE: I beg to second the Amendment.
I agree with the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). There is rather more in this, I think, than we have heard up to the present. Yesterday, we gave a Second Reading to an Electricity Bill for the whole of the country, by a tremendous majority, in face of serious opposition. Here to-day we have a, Bill presented with Clauses 17 to 45 relating to electricity for Bristol, and in the Fourth Schedule are set out the different prices to be charged within the city and outside the city. Surely if this Bill be accepted with the electricity Clauses in it, there will be some complication when the Government want to take action with respect, not only to Bristol, but the adjoining localities supplied either by limited companies or municipalities. I think it is fair that the electricity Clauses should stand down until such time as the Government say what they want.

Colonel ASHLEY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is under a misapprehension. I tried to explain the matter to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). This does not seek to give permission to the Bristol Corporation to erect a generating station. All it does is to give power, if and when the Electricity Commissioners and the Central Electricity Board say they may erect a station, to use this land for the purpose.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Gentleman surely knows that in his own Bill the choice of site is left to the Electricity Commissioners.

Mr. SEXTON: I was hoping that I should be relieved from intervening in this Debate, owing to the generosity of the hon. Gentleman who moved the
Instruction withdrawing the Motion. It is with a considerable amount of surprise that we find a Member of this House, representing a very important seaport the interests of which are so vitally affected by this Bill, deliberately moving the rejection of it. I certainly cannot understand the mentality of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). Because of a Clause affecting private enterprise as against municipal enterprise, it is his intention to sacrifice the whole Bill conferring large and necessary powers of interest to every harbour in the United Kingdom.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am sure the hon. Gentleman would like an explanation of this apparently extraordinary attitude. There was to have been an Instruction put down to leave out these particular Clauses, but owing to the illness of an hon. Member it was not put down, and so we want some assurance otherwise.

Mr. SEXTON: I do not see how it relieves the hon. and gallant Member from the responsibility, all the same. If his object were carried out, what would be the result? What has gone a few minutes before would be absolutely nullified by his Amendment. I was somewhat diffident about intervening, because both sides happen to be friends of our organisation for the time being. For 35 or 40 years I have been associated with this industry, and for 25 years at least, with the exception of two contests within strict Queensberry Rules, we have been good friends. Without going into the technicalities of Clauses 12 and 13, I hope the House will see the importance of these Clauses. The most important attribute to any port is the estuary of a river. The point of negligence was raised. How can there be a wreck without negligence? If a ship be sunk in collision, the man whose ship is sunk is compensated by the man who sank her; or else a ship sinks in a river because she is not seaworthy. To my mind, there is no other alternative. In regard to life-saving and dock regulations to reduce the accidents in docks by 60 per cent. we have had the absolute support of both sides, shipowners and port authorities, and simply in the spirit of fair play we want to see that this Amendment is not carried by this House.
It is only robbing Peter to pay Paul, after all. If you put the harbour authorities to cost, you only shift the burden on to the harbour dues, which are raised to the consumer and the cargo owner. I hope this House will see the enormous danger, and reject with emphasis the very unnecessary and unpractical suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull.

Mr. HANNON: I think, perhaps, after the turn the Debate is now taking, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) will possibly see his way to withdraw his Amendment. I agree entirely with him that the interests of the West Gloucestershire Power Company are seriously menaced by the Clauses in the Bill. One is interested to see an hon. Member, who has from time to time given such abundant evidence of his steady. forceful and aggressive advance towards Socialism standing up in this House tonight and actually moving the rejection of a Clause because he wants to protect private enterprise against a municipal authority. I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend on his conversion, and I hope that on many other occasions when we are defending private enterprise we shall have the support of his characteristic, forceful, authoritative and carefully considered eloquence. There is no doubt the powers sought by the Bristol Corporation in this Bill call for serious consideration in relation to the position of the West Gloucestershire Power Company. In spite of the many kindly criticisms which we passed last night upon the Minister of Transport, the Electricity Bill was given a Second Reading, and one would imagine that he would advise the promoters of this Bill to wait until the electricity policy of the Government had been hammered out in Committee before introducing into a private Bill a Clause of the quality described so excellently by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull.
The West Gloucestershire Power Company have established a station at Lydney under the authority of this House, and with the approval of the Electricity Commissioners, and they are covering successfully and efficiently a large area in that district, and I think it would be very hard indeed that a private company in which a considerable amount of public
money has been invested—public money to the extent, I think, of £835, 000—should have their rights prejudiced and the interests of their shareholders menaced by the insertion of a Clause of this kind.
I am the last person in the world to criticise any proposal of a practical and progressive nature made by the great Bristol Corporation. I have the most kindly recollections of the time I spent in Bristol, and nothing would give me greater pleasure, in this House or outside, than to help the Corporation of Bristol in the prosecution of their work an behalf of the welfare of the inhabitants. But I hope we shall never allow any municipal enterprise, with all the power it has behind it, with its array of supporters on the Ministerial Bench in this House, to secure a Bill which will seriously threaten rights granted under tile authority of Parliament by a great private company.

Mr. MacLAREN: Even when it is a monopoly?

Mr. HANNON: The hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) has been, participating in the advantages of monopolies during the whole of his life, and it is a pity that at this time of day he has not recognised the definite advantages which a great many monopolies give over ill-managed public enterprises. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he will not be in the least degree diminishing the general objects of the Bill, and will still he giving to Bristol the power to accomplish all those things which it seeks to accomplish, if he asks the promoters to withdraw this Clause. I do not like to put anything in the way of the Bill getting a Second Beading, and I suggest to my hon. and gallant Friend that perhaps he might pursue the same course in the ease of this Clause as we did in the case of the Clause affecting the removal of wrecks. We do not want to embarrass any municipality in carrying on their work for the benefit of their own people, but we ought to have an understanding that in promoting these Measures they are not to interfere with the rights of private enterprise institutions already established and authorised by Parliament, and I am sure my right hon. Friend the Minister will give us an undertaking that nothing will be done in
carrying this Bill through Parliament to interfere with the rights of the West Gloucestershire Power Company.

Sir PHILIP RICHARDSON: I rise in support of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), because in view of what happened recently it is most desirable that we shall have some assurance from those who have promoted this Bill that there is nothing in it which will overlap or clash with what is proposed in the Electricity Bill to which we gave a Second Reading yesterday. It certainly is a question for consideration as to why Parliament should grant authority to Bristol to do that which it has proposed the Central Board should do under its proposed Bill. I have risen to support this Bill because we are all at one in desiring that, in general, the Bill should meet with approval; but at the same time we ought to safeguard the powers that would be exercised by the body that is proposed to be set up. Already there is a power station at Lydney, and it has not been used to the full extent of its load, and for that reason alone we ought to go somewhat slowly in granting to any corporation power to establish a station for the generation of a further supply of electricity. If these provisions are sanctioned there is no question but that the proposed new station will be likely to overlap with the existing stations, and I think it is part of the policy of the Government, and I hope of all of us, that these stations should not overlap, and that there should be no wasteful generation of electricity but that everything should be used to the best possible advantage. Possibly all that is required is some reply from those promoting the Bill, but I have risen to enter a sort of caveat,  so that we may not pass anything this evening which we should afterwards regret. Many, in fact the majority, of the provisions of the Bill appear to meet with general approval, but I have just risen to support the Motion of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hull in the hope that the Minister will make some reply and satisfy the House that if the Bill is sent upstairs these particular points will be safeguarded.

Colonel WOODCOCK: I have listened to the opponents of this Bill, and to those who have spoken in favour of it. There is a great deal in this Bill which I heartily
support, of course, but I think the promoters have been rather ambitious, and have tried to include in their Measure every possible power that any Corporation have ever obtained in the many Bills that have been passed by Parliament for some years.
There are some provisions that before they are passed to-night I should like the House to understand. I listened to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy), and I could not make out for some time what was his solicitude on behalf of Vise City of Bristol. I have never heard him speak in that way before. I have never heard him take such a great interest in it, and it was not until I found out that some of these gentlemen who live in Hull are shareholders in this West Gloucestershire Power Company—ladies and gentlemen in his constituency —that that seems to be the explanation of his great solicitude. These constituents having their money invested in this West Gloucestershire Power Company. I am not concerned at all for this Power Company. It is a private company, and it must look after itself. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear! "] I am sure hon. Members opposite will be quite pleased to hear that. The West Gloucestershire Power Company is a private enterprise.
We on this side try to help private enterprises. There is nothing suggested to be taken from this West Gloucestershire Power Company; they have got their rights. What they are striving to do is quite different from what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull expressed. The West Gloucester have a power station over in the Forest of Dean, 25 miles away from Bristol as the crow flies. This small new power company has built this station in the last three or four years, and it only now develops 10, 000 kilowatts, which, the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, is hardly worth talking about. This small company wants to extend its tentacles, and come down and embrace the outlying suburban districts adjacent to the City of Bristol. So far as I am concerned, this Electricity Bill is of the greatest importance to the ratepayers of the City of Bristol. They have to see that the bill is footed if this electrical undertaking does not pay its way.
10.0 P.M.
The matter is of such great importance to Bristol, where I am a ratepayer, and to the citizens there that I want this House thoroughly to understand what Bristol are involved in in this matter. I want the Minister of Transport to tell us, and to make it quite clear, what is the relation of this Bill and the city of Bristol to the new Electricity Bill which was brought before this House yesterday. The chairman of the Electricity Committee of Bristol, when he spoke on this Bill in the Council, definitely promised that if the situation changed in the electrical world that this Bill should not be proceeded with. I maintain that during the last two or three days, from all we have heard in this House, that the whole of the situation has Changed, so far as electricity is concerned and the manner in which the Government is going to carry on the work. I want to know the relation of the city of Bristol to the action that the Electricity Commissioners or the Central Board arc going to take. Have the Commissioners had anything to do with inspiring Bristol to put up this huge scheme which is totally out of proportion with the requirements of Bristol or even the near surrounding districts? If Bristol is going to proceed with this scheme, is it going to be used in the national scheme, or a central scheme for the Lower Severn area? Then what is the position of the citizens going to be and the ratepayers who will have to work this huge station which is going to develop 240, 900 kilowatts? In what relation is this going to stand towards the national effort that is to be made.
It is about 30 years now since the present scheme started in a very small way; and this station was removed to a second called Feeder Road. The whole thing is a matter of history in Bristol, that when the station was put up at Feeder Road it was thought that it was going to last for all time. They develop now about 26, 000 kilowatts, the outcome of work for the last 30 years. Under this new scheme which is going to be put up, the new plant will develop, not 26, 000 kilowatts, but 240, 000 kilowatts, totally out of proportion to the needs of Bristol, and totally out of all reason. I want to know—perhaps the Minister of Transport
will tell us—when Bristol asked for an inquiry to be set on foot and for an inspector to be sent down to Feeder Road in connection with the extension proposed, whether the representatives of the Commissioners reported—for already the Bristol authority had purchased 15 acres of land adjacent to the station—when visited by the representatives of the Commissioners whether it was said to him that they must not select Feeder Road but put up another scheme altogether that is going to develop much larger output so as to provide for the whole district. Can the Minister of Transport tell us whether it was an inspector who represented the Commissioners who said: "We shall never support Feeder Road in the national scheme, but if you go to Portishead it will be suitable "? I do not say that he said this, but I am asking whether this was the atmosphere created? I ask whether it was suggested that if Bristol went to Portishead and developed a huge station that they would have every possibility—without any promise being given—that this would be taken over by the national authority? The chairman of the Bristol Electricity Committee stated at the public inquiry in connection with this Pill, when the matter was discussed in the Council, it was not carried unanimously, but only by a very small majority.

Mr. PALINGM: It was carried by the statutory majority, or it would not have been here.

Colonel WOODCOCK: It was carried by a statutory majority when the Bill was discussed. It was carried in the Council with a small majority. The point I want to make is that at the public inquiry the Chairman of the Electrical Committee stated that this station was laid out for Bristol alone and that between now and 1947 they hoped to develop 240, 000 kilowatts against 26, 000 kilowatts at the present time. That is a most optimistic outlook of the local engineer who advised this. I think myself the whole thing is grossly exaggerated. As regards cost, if this new station at Portishead is carried out, which they hope will be the area station for the lower Severn area, it will cost eventually £4, 000, 000. At the present time Bristol expects to spend £1, 000, 000 to generate 40, 000 kilowatts, and that is expected to be reached in three years. It
is a very exaggerated idea that the local electrical engineer has put up, that Bristol is ever going to utilise the amount of electricity being talked about at the present time. The Minister of Transport may perhaps tell us whether this is an inspired scheme that is going to supply the lower Severn area.
Regarding the Weir Report, it was stated that to supply the Lower Area of the Severn, which reaches from Gloucester in the North to Watchet in Somerset, including the whole of the Bristol area and the Bristol district. The Weir Committee only estimate that in 1940 they want 198, 500 kilowatts for the whole of this area, instead of, which Bristol has over-estimated, the size of the station that they want. At the present time Bristol uses 26, 000 kilowatts. In three years they hope to use 40, 000 kilowatts. In 1947 they estimate 240, 000 kilowatts, but still the Weir Report, for the whole of the area from Gloucester to Watchet only estimates 198, 500 for 1940. Then there are the financial responsibilities of the ratepayers. I do not think hon. Members opposite will ever use Bristol as an example of one of the great successes of municipal enterprise. The object of municipal enterprise is either to supply very cheap electricity or to assist the rates to some great extent.
Up till recently Bristol was paying 5½. per unit of electricity, and I think on two occasions have they provided very Minute sums of money in relief of the rates. That is in 33 years, and I do not think anyone will want to use Bristol electricity as an example of a great successful municipal enterprise. The report of the independent consulting engineer was in no way too favourable. It could not even promise great future success. The report of the engineer—who reported independently, I am sure—very few Members would have accepted as one of those definite promises of success which we should have hoped to have. At Feeder Road they have spent £1, 250, 000 out of which £625, 000 is still outstanding, and if they are going to have one station, Feeder Road Station will have to be scrapped with its £625, 000, and the interest and sinking fund will have to come as a charge on the new station. It does not look as if they are going to have cheap electricity in Bristol and its neighbourhood while you have got this
redundant station, for which you have to provide interest and sinking fund.
I do hope the Minister will get these electricity Clauses postponed, not because I want to hamper in any way the success of this undertaking. The Minister should give us some information as to whether this is to be a national station. What we want to know in Bristol is—if this scheme is to be pushed on further, will the Government assure us that the city will not be hampered by a further station being put up in competition with it in that area? We want to be assured of the financial responsibility of the city of Bristol, and to be sure that it is going to be a central station. We want the Treasury definitely to assure the corporation that they are going to allow the city of Bristol to receive any privileges and advantages that may come from the new Electricity Supply Bill. I think that if the city of Bristol consider the best interests of their ratepayers at the present moment they would postpone this Bill. I think they should get the full advantages and privileges of the new Bill now before the House and be assured as to the position they are taking up and feel certain that they are going into an enterprise with the Government behind them and all the national resources and assistance they can get from the Government.

Mr. PALIN: I consider it to be a gross abuse of the privileges of this House that a very important Bill affecting the life and well-being of such an important city as Bristol should be rejected at the behest of a few wealthy supporters of the hon. Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). I could have understood it if they had had no tribunal to whom their case could he stated, hut the Committee upstairs hears counsel at very great length on behalf of every interest that may be involved in a public Bill of this character. With this advantage they do not have it all their own way as they have it here. There are skilled counsel on the other side that can put the case and the evidence can be sifted. The Committee upstairs is an exact reflex of the opinion of the House. As a matter of fact, on the local legislation committee to which this Bill will be referred there are people who might be quite strongly imbued with private enterprise, but they are there in a judicial
capacity and have to give their decisions according to the weight of evidence. They have an opportunity of questioning those people who, it seems to me, are afraid to face the music in these days. Their statements here cannot be challenged as they can upstairs, and they abuse the privileges of this House to escape the proper procedure the House has laid down for these Bills. It has become quite the usual thing to have these pettifogging private interests discussed at great length before they are sent to the Committee, and then in many cases it is found that they have not a leg to stand on. Surely here is a case where, if anybody ought to have these privileges, it should be the Bristol Corporation. I think this Bill ought to go upstairs.
As the Minister of Transport has tried to explain, the powers of the Electricity Clauses of this Bill, if granted, will not allow the Bristol Corporation to supply a single more unit than it is supplying at the present time, and the Measure only gives power to erect another generating station in certain eventualities. If it is true that the Bristol Corporation is seeking to stake out another claim they will certainly have regard to the imminence of further legislation in regard to electrical supply. We have the work of the local legislation committee before us, and therefore it is open on the Report of the Committee, if they give a decision against the weight of evidence, to convict them. That is the time to begin to talk as hon. Members have talked to-night, and not on the Second Reading before the case has been put in the manner Parliament has decided that it shall be put.

Mr. ROBERT HUDSON: I did not hear the speech made by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), but I have received a number of letters both for and against this Bill. I do not think hon. Members have quite thoroughly grasped the details of this Bill as it is before the House, nor do I think that those persons who are contending that the interests of the West Gloucestershire Power Company will be seriously affected have read this Bill. Whether any given electrical station is or is not an efficient one depends on the question of the water supply. Although the station with which we are dealing
may reach an output of 30, 000 kilowatts, owing to its location and the very inadequate amount of water available at Lydney, it will never be able to meet the demands which will be made upon it. You would have a station at Portishead, and it is almost inevitable that a station somewhere in that neighbourhood will eventually become one of the selected stations under the Board established by the Electricity Bill.
What I am anxious that the House should realise is that, if what I anticipate happens, and Portishead becomes the selected station, the interests of the shareholders of the West Gloucestershire Power Company will not be adversely affected, because the whole technical basis of the Electricity Bill, to which we have given a Second Reading and which we are to discuss upstairs, is that these selected stations under the aegis and control of the Board will be able to generate electricity so very much more cheaply that the small existing stations that they will be able to sell to power companies like the West Gloucestershire Power Company much more cheaply than the West Gloucestershire Power Company can themselves produce at Lydney even if they increase the capacity of their station to 30, 000 kilowatts eventually—at present it is only 10, 000 kilowatts
The West Gloucestershire Power Company's interests will not be in any way adversely affected. They will be able to get electricity from Portishead—assuming for purposes of argument that the station is at Portishead—for distribution over their area through inter-connecting lines, very much more cheaply than they can ever hope to produce it at Lydney, and to that extent the argument tat the shareholders of the West Gloucestershire Power Company will be in any way adversely affected is, I venture to submit to the House, entirely erroneous. As for the question of the ratepayers of Bristol, to whom the hon. and gallant Member for Everton (Colonel Woodcock) referred, I would again venture to point out that he has not really read the Bill. He talked about the question of the relief of rates, but, if he had read the Bill, he would see that there is definite provision in the Bill limiting the amount that can be applied in relief of rates to 1½ per cent. on the capital cost of the station;
and, furthermore, apart from that contingency—

Colonel WOODCOCK: I do not think my hon. Friend would wish to misrepresent me. The rates would be paid by the corporation, and not refunded to the corporation. I think my hon. Friend has got hold of the wrong end.

Mr. HUDSON: I am afraid I do not follow the hon. Member's interruption. I think it only goes to support my contention. If the corporation worn to put up the station, as they would under the terms of the Electricity Clauses of this Bill, the payment for the current from that particular station would cover sinking fund and the whole cost of generation. They would not lose in any possible way. If the Corporation of Bristol act as a distributing company, they will buy very much cheaper electricity, and will be able to make a profit on the distribution of that very much cheaper electricity up to, but not exceeding, 1½ per cent. of the capital cost. Therefore, in any case, under his Bill, Bristol stands to gain. Bristol cannot possibly lose. The only conceivable way in which Bristol could lose would be by refusing to put up this station and being dependent on the supply of electricity from the generating station at Lydney, because, a priori,  from the technical data upon which this Bill is based, the station at Lydney can never be so efficient as a station at Portishead.

Colonel WOODCOCK: How do you know?

Mr. HUDSON: I base that upon what I think will be agreed, namely, that the technical basis of this Bill is correct. I, therefore, venture to suggest to the House, with all respect, that from the point of view of the Consumer of electricity over this whole area, from the point of view of the Corporation of Bristol and the ratepayers of Bristol, and also, as I would particularly suggest to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), from the point of view of the shareholders of the West Gloucester Power Company, there is nothing whatever, so far as the Electricity Clauses of this Bill go, that would in any way justify the House in refusing to give the Bill a Second Reading.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I rise to say a few words on the Bill merely as one of the Members for the City of Bristol, and what I have to say I am allowed to say on behalf of all the five Members for the City, irrespective of the party to which they belong. Perhaps in view of the detail of local matters to which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Everton (Colonel Woodcock) treated the House, I may say a few words about the history of the matter which will inform the House as to the position. For over 40 years Bristol has been engaged in supplying electricity for the benefit of its citizens and the persons within its area of supply. It is not to be wondered at that on its first attempt it had not the foresight to anticipate the developments and the extension of the use of electricity, and before a long time had passed it was necessary to move from its first station to a new station. In the last 20 years the use of electricity in Bristol has greatly increased. At present the whole of the available output at the corporation station is used, and in a very short time the supply that new consumers desire will not be forthcoming unless some steps are taken. The present position is that the canal that is used for the supply of water for the purpose of the undertaking is more like a Turkish bath than anything else in consequence of the deficiency of water.
Having once had to move its station owing to lack of foresight, for which no one blames them, the Bristol ratepayers are determined that they will not have to move it a third time, and they have selected a piece of land which has belonged to the corporation for a great many years—long before the Electricity Act. They contemplate putting up, if they get the necessary permission from the Minister of Transport, a station which will be adequate for the needs of its ratepayers and the consumers within its area. It does not propose to prejudge any question. It does not propose to extend its area of supply by a single square yard. It is merely seeking the protection which Parliament can give to Bristol in connection with the erection of works which will be necessary if the Minister of Transport gives the necessary permission In order to enable the Bristol Corporation to go forward with its electrical undertaking. I think my hon. Friend has entirely misapprehended the
purpose of the Bill. This is not a Bill to enable Bristol to construct an electrical power station on its own territory. It might have proceeded without coming for an Act of Parliament. It might have proceeded by way of a Special Order obtained from the Ministry.
The only reason why it has come to the House, and why it is promoting a Bill for other purposes, is to enable the Corporation to have the protection of being free from a possible injunction on the ground that they are committing some nuisance in consequence of the erection of a gantry or other necessary work, when the new station comes to be erected under the permission which will be given, if it is given, by the Minister of Transport. The Bill does not prejudge in a single point any question which will arise under the Bill we discussed yesterday. All that has happened is that the Corporation, like a prudent authority, having a general Bill, deems it wise to take these powers now in order that it may not find it necessary to come for another Bill in a year's time to seek the protection it may desire to have at the earliest possible moment if the Bristol consumers are not to find themselves deprived of that which they are entitled to have.
The Bristol Corporation area is not sought to be enlarged by this Bill. The corporation anticipate that the consumers in Bristol will increase, as they have increased during the last 21 years. That is to say, they will double themselves every seven years. The West Gloucester Power Company's area is a large one of 300 square miles, and they have made application, I am informed, for an extension of their area by a further territory of 290 square miles, so that they will have an area of something like 590 square miles in order to absorb the capacity of their existing stations. One of my hon. Friends has said that it is very doubtful whether the Lydney Power Station will ever have the capacity to supply the demands that are likely to arise in connection with the Bristol Corporation supply. Be that as it may, it would appear likely that the West Gloucester Power Company will have their hands full in supplying the area at present at their disposal and the further area which they are seeking power to supply.
If there is going to be any overlapping, as the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) suggested, I would point out that there is a very large territory between the Bristol area and the West Gloucester area. Whenever any application comes to be made by the West Gloucester Power Company or by the Bristol Corporation for an extension of their several areas, then will be the time that the matter might be discussed in the light of the information to be brought before the Committee or tribunal which is to settle the question. On the present occasion, as far as the electricity Clauses in the Bill are concerned, the only thing that the House is asked to do is to let the Bill have its Second Reading, including the two Clauses that are required to give the Bristol Corporation the authority, not to erect this power station now, but merely to give the corporation protection from an injunction which might possibly be eked for against them if they were to construct the works at some future date.
The hon. and gallant Member for Everton is an alderman of the City of Bristol, and he once sat for a constituency not very far from the City of Bristol which, I understand, the West Gloucester Power Company desire to serve, and which at present is a long way outside their area. My hon. and gallant Friend, I am told, on two occasions made speeches at the Bristol City Council very much of the tenour of the speech he has delivered here to-night. The Bristol City Council is a more appropriate tribunal to which his observations should be addressed than the House of Commons on the Second Reading of this Bill, Even hip eloquence and his wide range of information was not successful in persuading his fellow aldermen and councillors that he had got hold of the right end of stick. By a very large majority, the corporation decided in favour of this scheme. The scheme was submitted to the ratepayers, in accordance with the statutory provisions, and the ratepayers approved of it.
The Bristol Corporation is not a Socialist body, and if they have decided in favour of the scheme, and if the ratepayers have decided in favour of the scheme, it is an excess of zeal on my hon. and gallant Friend's part to come to
the House of Commons in order to protect the Bristol ratepayers and the Bristol Corporation against themselves. The Bristol Corporation has existed for three or four hundred years and is now, surely, able to take care of itself.
My hon. Friend's observations on this matter are really too late. The only question is whether the House shall give effect to the desire of Bristol to have the protection which it seeks to have under this Bill. The West Gloucester Power Company have a very doubtful locus in this matter. Still, such as it is, they pressed their claim for a locus standi upstairs. They have obtained that locus standi. Personally I was empowered to make the offer to them weeks ago. I made it to them, that they should have a locus stanch; upstairs without any objection at all by the Bristol Corporation, so that if their interests were in any way prejudiced, they should have the fullest opportunity of putting the matter before the appointed tribunal of this House, with such advice as they might obtain from counsel or experts. They did not accept the offer then. They have since pleaded for a locus and they have obtained it. They will have the opportunity of putting everything that my hon. Friend has put before the House—if it is relevant—before the Committee upstairs. I hope that the Bristol Corporation, which has great constituencies waiting for an adequate supply of electricity, will he allowed to take time by the forelock—not to prejudice any question, but in order that it should be equipped with the powers which are required if and when the Minister permits the Corporation to erect a power station on the property which for so many years has belonged to the Corporation.

Mr. J. H. EDWARDS: Do I understand that the learned Solicitor-General attaches no value to Clauses 17 and 25, and would agree to their deletion?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Clause 17 is necessary for the express purpose which I have tried to describe, namely. to give protection to the Bristol Corporation if they require to execute the works.

Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: We have had very valuable assurances from the learned Solicitor-General and he has made the position a great deal
clearer. I, therefore, ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Instruction which is on the Paper is not to be moved, I understand, in view of the earlier decision of the House. The second Notice of Motion on the Paper—[Equal Franchise]—is out of order. It cannot be taken because it anticipates a Bill which is set down. A Bill in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Wedgwood Benn) deals with the same subject.

Orders of the Day — RATING OF LAND VALUES BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I shall be very brief, for there are only 20 minutes remaining. The objects of this Bill are well known. The Bill is intended to preserve for the community the value that the community creates by its natural expansion and industry. The Bill would prevent the holding up of land in order to create a monopoly value. I think this Bill is long overdue, and therefore I hope it will receive the support of the House.

Major CRAWFURD: I beg to second the Motion.
In doing so I only want to add three points to what my hon. and gallant Friend the Mover has said. If this Parliament is consistent we have the support of three eminent authorities for this Bill. Last Session the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) was piloting an Allotments Bill through the House, in which an exemption was made in favour of allotments, providing that for three years no land devoted to allotment purposes under that Bill—now an Act—should be subject to any increase of rating. At that time, I endeavoured to secure an extension of that provision, making the exemption permanent. On the Friday when that Measure was being discussed, I endeavoured to amend it in that way, and I was told
the appropriate place to move any recommendation of the kind was not on that Bill but in Committee on the Rating and Valuation Bill which was then being considered upstairs. Subsequently I moved a series of Amendments to the Rating and Valuation Bill in Committee, and, although those Amendments were not accepted, the right hon. and learned Gentleman who was in charge of that Measure upstairs made an eloquent plea for the de-rating of machinery, and this was supported on the Report stage by the Minister of Health who in a very convincing speech secured the support of the House for the de-rating of certain forms of fixed machinery. Every argument that was used for the extension of the Allotment Bill in the way I described and for the de-rating of machinery, can be just as effectively and as consistently used for the principle of this Bill, which in a nutshell is that rates should not be levied on improvements made upon land, but should be levied on what is the true measure of communal service, namely, the site value of the land. In view of these facts which cannot be disputed I have no doubt we shall have the support of hon. Members opposite who arc the colleagues of the two Ministers I have mentioned and who were almost unanimous in their support of the Allotments Act which contains the principle we are now urging.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I rise to oppose this Bill, and my reason for doing so may be very briefly stated. It is to be found in what may be called the preamble to the Bill, which states that this Bill is to apply to the valuation of land and the rating of land values and other services connected therewith. During the past year we have been discussing Bills connected with valuation, and I think the country as a whole has had quite sufficient valuation and rating legislation to last for some considerable time. I think it unfair that in the few minutes which remain to us before 11 o'clock we should be expected to rush through another Bill connected with valuation. The arguments which have been so briefly put forward by the Mover and Seconder are not sufficient to convince the House that the Bill is required. The House will recollect that the last Bill dealing with questions of this kind, was discussed for a very considerable time; it was certainly not rushed through in 20 minutes or a quarter of an hour which is all the time now available.
I think, perhaps, the words "land values and for other purposes connected therewith "require a good deal of explanation, which we certainly have not had. "Land values "is a very large term. What are land values? We have had no explanation from either the Mover or Seconder, and what are the "other purposes? "That is a very vague term which we cannot be expected to accept in the few minutes which we have left. We are perfectly aware of what happened. Having 20 minutes unexpectedly allowed to us, it was hoped to rush through this Bill, of which the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) is one of the originators, and just because this House was caught for a few minutes, they thought that some hon. Member on their std would say "Agreed "and that this Bill would get through. I would like to assure hon. Members that they are entirely wrong in thinking that Members on this side are not looking after the interests of the country, for this Bill, as I see it, is entirely opposed to those interests.
In the first Clause, apparently, they intend to set up entirely different rating areas from those that have already been passed in the big Rating and Valuation Bill. Do they intend the county council area to be the new areas? It is not at all clear in the Bill, and I object to this slipshod and short-sighted way of trying to lush a Bill of this apparent importance through the House. We find further on that there are several other terms which require explanation. What, for instance, is the meaning of "capital land value"?

Major CRAWFURD: Clause 2 tells you.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Clause 2 says:
For the purposes of this Act the expression 'capital land value' means the amount which the fee simple of the hereditament might be expected to realise if sold at the time, of the valuation by a willing seller, in the open market, apart from all buildings or improvements, and free from any burden, charge, incumbrance or restriction other than a public right of way or of user or easement, or any right of common, and other than a burden, charge, incumbrance or restriction imposed by law.
The House ought not to pass this Bill. There are an immense quantity of interests involved which are too vast to allow a Bill of two Clauses of this magni-
tude to be passed. I will have no part in allowing it to slip through in this slipshod way. I see that in the first Clause there is no mention of the county authority. Therefore, and on account of the slipshod method of introduction, of the shortage of the Debate, and of the, shortness of time available, I oppose this Bill.

Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That, "to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
a satisfactory reform of the present system of local taxation must be arrived at, not by piecemeal and partial treatment, but by snob legislation as will secure fair and equitable treatment to all classes of the community.
It is noteworthy that this Bill lays down an absolutely new basis for rating. Up to the present it has always been based on what a willing tenant would give to a willing landlord. It will be remembered that last Session we debated the Rating and Valuation Bill, and discussed the question of rating at great length. There is a vast mass of case law and statute law dealing with rating on the present basis of valuation. It is thoroughly understood by the various rating authorities throughout the land. They know more or less the basis on which they have to work, and how it has to be applied not only in urban but in rural districts. I submit it is a very serious matter to propose to alter the basis on which the rating system of this country is founded. More especially is it a very much more serious business when you propose to alter it and to confer these powers on an urban district. After all, you have in many urban districts land used for agricultural purposes, land which is put under a special valuation, and there will be great difficulty in trying to reconcile the provisions of this Bill, if it is passed, with existing Acts. It will be noticed that this Bib does not contain a schedule and does not deal with enactments which obviously must be amended if this Bill becomes law. I see that the Bill says:
Provided that if the person liable to pay such rate proves that the hereditament is genuinely and reasonably occupied for agricultural purposes, including market gardening, and that there is no effective demand for the same for building or industrial purposes. …
The hon. and gallant Member who seconded the Bill said it would assist the
allotment holder. Personally I doubt the statement. There is very little land in an urban district which is occupied for allotments which cannot be required for building, and I can assure the House that the greatest difficulty we have bad is to meet the claims of the allotment holders and the general interests of the community. I think any land that is occupied in urban districts for allotments may be claimed to be suitable for building, and under this Bill the allotment holder will get no compensation whatever, and on this ground I protest against the Bill. [Interruption.] This Bill is simply brought up by those who look at the capital value of land but have no idea what can be done with land except for building, It is simply the theoretic proposal of those who have no practical knowledge of the subject.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.
Some 20 years ago, with a spare shilling in my pocket, finding myself in the Charing Cross Road, I bought a book written by Henry George, entitled "Progress and Poverty."That book was written, I believe, before I was born. The contentions which it sought to establish were completely destroyed many years ago by Mr. H. M. Hyndman, a man who, I suppose, knew more about Socialism than any hon. Gentleman or rïght hon. Gentleman sitting opposite. The famous Debate of Single Tax v. Social Democracy destroyed the basis of this Bill 30 or 35 years ago, but the hon. Gentlemen who belong to the Liberal party, whose minds remain fixed, to whom progress is a matter of indifference, who never learn anything fresh, are still prepared to trot out before this House, 30 years after the greatest Socialist this country has ever known completely destroyed its basis, this Bill as one item in their alleged progressive polïcy.

lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put, "but Mr. SPEAKERwithheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. WILLIAMS: It was not till many years afterwards that the views of Henry George were temporarily adopted by a right hon. Gentleman of a somewhat similar name, and in the year 1909 this
House spent many all-night sittings and longer than it is likely to spend to-night, for the purpose of discussing whether or not land should be valued, whether it should be subjected to a site tax, an undeveloped land tax, and an increment value duty, and I well remember making numerous speeches outside against that Bill, and I well remember the predictions which were made as to the ill-effect it would have on housing. The predictions we then made were right. All of us remember the great check to housing which resulted from that scheme, the failure of valuation, which cost far more than the duties ever brought in, and all of us remember it was with the consent of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) that the whole scheme—

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put, "but Mr. SPEAKERwithheld his assent, and declined then, to put that Question.

Mr. WILLIAMS: —and his somewhat rebellious followers—

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Tuesday, 13th April.

Orders of the Day — ECONOMY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.

Postponed Proceeding resumed in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Amendment as to proportion of contributions payable, respectively, by insured persons and employers and by the Treasury.)

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: When our proceedings were interrupted I had been answering the charges of breach of faith by giving my own version of what, I believe to be the real basis of the bargain struck in 1911, and I had shown that the developments of the insurance scheme had brought a great deal more to insured persons than they had at the time when the scheme was started, or had any reason to expect. I do take any charge of breach of faith as a serious
matter, and I make no distinction between pledges given by myself and pledges given by other Ministers who may have made them in this House before I was a Member, and if I thought that in these proposals any charge could fairly and properly be brought against us of breaking our pledges, certainly I for one would be no party to them. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) read out passages from speeches made by members of the Government in 1911 in support of his charge that they had made pledges which we were not now keeping. He read them very slowly and very solemnly, and apparently his slowness and solemnity were regarded by his own party as sufficient proof that what he was reading out was really a pledge that we were breaking. I listened very carefully, and I made some notes of the words on which the right hon. Gentleman relied. I do not deny that certain pledges were made at that time, but I say that we are keeping those pledges. The pledges we are accused of breaking are not pledges that were ever given then. The right hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Members talk all the time as though we were raiding the, surpluses, but we are not raiding the surpluses. I have plained before that the surpluses are entirely untouched by our proposals. What the pledges really amounted to was this—and I take the phrase from the speech by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) which was quoted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby—that he said he undertook that the societies would have the benefit of their own thrift. That is a short phrase, but it was the same as the statement put at rather greater length by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) in his speech on the Second Reading of the Economy Bill—I think he stated it very fairly—and I say that that pledge is being kept in the spirit and in the letter.
It is absolutely true that after this Bill is passed the societies will still continue to reap the benefit of their own thrift and their own careful and economical management; but the report of the Actuary and the report of the Royal Commission show without any
shadow or vestige of doubt that the surpluses which have been accumulated to such a gigantic figure have been due in the main to extraneous causes which are not to be described as due to anything that has been done by the societies but arise mainly out of the extra rate of interest which they were enabled to earn. I have explained already that the rate of interest which was taken into account by the Actuaries when they were making their calculations as to the appropriate rate of contribution by the State in the original scheme was 3 per cent. Now that the rate of interest is found to be 5 per cent, instead of 3 per cent., as was then calculated, it is reasonable that we should review the whole situation. Really, we are returning good for evil to the societies. It has been said that the societies have voluntarily undertaken certain burdens and borne certain sacrifices and that this is their reward! But could anything be more one-sided? Could anything be more partisan than a statement of that kind. I pointed out in my speech on the Second Reading of the Bill what this Government, what various Governments, have done for the approved societies, that they have taken upon themselves the burden of the extra cost of medical benefit, estimated at £19, 000, 000, and on account of minor charges another £5, 000, 000. I might mention other things that might very well be brought into the account—provisions for the improvement of the public health, etc.; provisions for the relief of tuberculosis, sanatoria, maternity and child welfare, etc. All these mean that to this extent we have been successful in the relief of sickness.

Mr. THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain this situation: While it is true that the interest on the original calculation has increased from 3 per cent. to 5 per cent., is it not also true that, notwithstanding all the services to which the right hon. Gentleman has alluded, there is no society to-day getting greater benefit for the present contribution than was originally anticipated in the Act—in addition to which, based on the increased cost of living, the value is less to the man than was originally contemplated.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: A right hon. Gentleman with the knowledge that the
right hon. Member for Derby has of approved societies asking me a question like that! Is it possible that he is not aware of the additional benefits, cash and others, that are being paid more than originally agreed upon? Of course they are paid, partly because the rate of interest is greater than was contemplated under the scheme.

Mr. THOMAS: Is the value the same? Take into account the devaluation of money!

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: You must set against that the increased benefits they have got. You cannot have it both ways. I think really I have disposed of this charge of a breach of faith, though nothing could alter the opinion of hon Gentlemen opposite, I say that no reasonable person can sustain any charge of breach of faith in what we are doing under this Bill. I say again, that that is not the whole question. I protest against these charges of breach of faith being hurled about without any foundation. But it is perfectly open to hon. Members opposite to argue that what we are doing is unfair, even though it be not a breach of faith. I am perfectly prepared to argue that what we are doing is perfectly fair and perfectly reasonable. We are not touching any surpluses accumulated under the first valuation. We are not touching any surpluses accumulated under the second valuation. We are not even touching the surpluses which have been accumulating since the second valuation up to the present. The right hon. Gentleman asks: 1f you are going to take £2, 800, 000 a year, where is it going to come from? If we do not pay that money out of the Exchequer, then the approved societies will have that much less. It is perfectly obvious. I might equally say that if we were not, merely not to withdraw £2, 800, 000, but if we were to add another £2, 800, 000, the societies would have that much more. Is it reasonable, assuming that there is no question of faith or pledge involved, to say to the societies: "You really do not require this extra money at the present time so much that we are justified in asking the taxpayer to find it for you "? That is our case.
We say it is not necessary and that societies which have been accumulating surpluses at this rate and have been able to distribute benefits among their members at a far higher level than they ever had any reason to expect—we say that, when the whole country is suffering from a heavy burden of taxation, it is not reasonable that a society should go on accumulating surpluses at this rate, because you must cut your coat according to your cloth. Is it a fact that we are going to deprive them of any benefits which they have contracted to pay to their members? The actuary has given it as his considered opinion that what we are doing will not touch these benefits. Therefore, what hon. and right hon. Gentlemen had to fall back on is this, that, if it were not for this provision, at some time in the future societies would have been able to pay some benefits additional to those being contemplated to-day. I think really that hon. Members opposite are too pessimistic about the future of the approved societies. There are several factors which I think ought to be taken into consideration in speculating—for it is not very much more than that—on what surpluses they may still be able to accumulate under the third valuation if these proposals are carried out. We have seen a steady rise in the rate of accumulation of surpluses in the past. In the first period of six years they were £17, 000, 00; in the second period, which was only four years, or two-thirds of the time of the first valuation, there were accumulated surpluses, including the carry forward and the contingency fund, amounting to;£45, 000, 000; and in the remaining period of only something like two years, already it is estimated that there are accumulated surpluses amounting to £20, 000, 000 additional. Altogether you have £36, 000, 000, and this is the backyard around which we are supposed to be prowling in order to rob somebody. I say that the rate of accumulation of these surpluses is steadily increasing, and that is shown by the figures I have just given to the Committee. You have to take in account two facts. First of all, under the Pensions Act the societies are relieved of the liability of cash benefit to people between 65 and 70, and that applies to additional benefits
just as much as to normal benefits. Therefore, a surplus of a given amount which went to a certain point before the passing of that Act is bound to go beyond that point after the passing of the Act, because the demand upon them will not be so great.
The second point is that the average of contributions per year is steadily going up. At one time the average number of contributions was 43, but it has risen and is now 47. I daresay it will go higher still if unemployment continues to decrease as it has been doing recently. [An HON. MEMBERS"What about parish relief?"] It is perfectly clear that as unemployment goes down the average number of contributions will go up. Those are figures which may give us a certain amount of confidence in the future, and I am very strongly of opinion that in spite of the diminution of the State contribution proposed by this Bill when the third valuation comes round, the surpluses will be sufficient to enable the approved societies to continue all the benefits which they have been able to declare under the second valuation.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I am a little astonished at some of the arguments which have been used by the Minister of Health who is not able to get it out of his mind that the taking of £2, 800, 000 out of this scheme is going to adversely affect the benefits. He has also declared that insured persons are getting greater benefits than they were at the beginning. I challenge that statement. The right hon. Gentleman also makes the astonishing statement that the benefits of insured persons will not be reduced by the proposals we are now discussing. I would ask him to follow me for a moment or two over the three valuation periods, and I trust the Committee will bear with me while I put the matter in my own way. It is perfectly true that the benefits which are payable as the result of the first and second valuations will not be disturbed in the least by the proposals in Clause 1; that is obvious. But I cannot understand the right hon. Gentleman not telling us the whole of the truth. It is perfectly true to say that there will be no reduction of benefit whatsoever as the result of the first two quinquennial periods, but the Government, in the middle of the third
valuation period, are going to take £2, 800, 000 per annum out of the scheme, plus the interest on that sum. Surely no one who understands the administration of the approved societies is going to argue that the benefits will be the same at the close of third valuation period as they are at the moment. Then the right hon. Gentleman turns round and says that the. total sum that will be payable from the State, although the proportion is reducedpro rata, will be still greater. That may be true, but I would point out that the increased population has something to do with that. The increased population must be brought into account in this connection. I am astonished, further, at the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the approved societies are getting rid of their liability entirely in respect of all persons over 65 years of age.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: indicated dissent.

Mr. DAVIES: But the right hon. Gentleman used those words a moment or two ago.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member will forgive me, hut I did not say "entirely "; I said only in respect of cash benefits.

Mr. DAVIES: Accepting what the right hon. Gentleman says, let us pursue if further for a moment. It is perfectly true that the Contributory Pensions Act will relieve the approved societies of liability in respect of cash benefits for all persons over 65 years of age, but it does not, as I understand it, relieve them of paying additional benefits of the treatment type. Let us see where we stand on that score. Is it not reasonable to presume that treatment benefits of the kind provided in the Schedule of additional benefits will be very much more called upon in respect of persons who have reached the age of 65 than in respect of persons under 65? Let me deal with that point for a moment. Most approved societies have adopted one additional benefit. All those societies that are able to do anything at all are paying 50 per cent. of the cost of dentures and dental treat-merit. Other approved societies have adopted a second additional benefit, namely, optical treatment and appliances, and, in some cases, surgical
appliances. Surely, the right hon. Gentleman must understand that the liabilities of approved societies, with what the actuaries call the increase of survivorship, must, in respect of persons over 65, increase, so far as I can see, for some years to come at any rate. Consequently, that ought to be borne in mind in the arguments. But there is another argument used by the right hon. Gentleman's that I cannot understand. He seems to think that no fault can be found with the Government for what they are doing. As a matter of fact, they are condemned out of their own mouths. Clause 3 of the Bill says—and this is the first time, as far as I am aware, in the administration of the National Health Insurance scheme, that any Clause of this kind has been inserted—
If on the valuation of an approved society or of a branch of an approved society it appears to the valuer that a deficiency will be disclosed, 
then a certificate will be issued. That gives the whole case of the Government away, because they apprehend, in their own scheme, that there will be deficiencies, and, in fact, the Actuary has told them that already. Now let me dwell upon the point—

Mr. BLUNDELL: If I may interrupt for a moment, I think the hon. Gentleman will strengthen his case if he quotes the further words of the Sub-section
has been made worse in consequence of the provisions of this Part of the Act.

Mr. DAVIES: Exactly. I thought the right hon. Gentleman would know that.
If on the valuation of an approved society it appears to the valuer that a deficiency will be disclosed, he shall forthwith report the case to the Government actuary, and on receiving such report the Government actuary shall proceed to estimate the amount by which the financial position of the society or branch has been made worse in consequence of the provisions of this part of this Act and then shall issue a certificate.

Sir K. WOOD: I do not know whether it is on order to discuss Clause 3 at this stage, because I shall have to make some reply. It is rather inconvenient.

The CHAIRMAN: I rather think the hon. Member was suggesting that the provisions of Clause 3 throw a certain light on Clause 1. If he quotes the provisions of Clause 3 as an argument relevant to
Clause I, it will not be out of order, but, of course, he cannot discuss Clause 3 except in connection with Clause 1.

Mr. DAVIES: I was only using Clause 3 as an argument. I want to make this point before I proceed to the next stage. The right hon Gentleman has tried to induce the House to believe that, in fact, although the money is going to be withheld from the approved societies it will make no difference to the benefits to be paid to the insured population. I will give him the case of a society with which I am familiar. On the first valuation it was only able to pay 2s. a week additional benefit by way of sickness benefit. if this measure is passed into law it will be in deficiency. See what will happen then. The Government will be able to make up the deficiency to meet the normal minimum benefits but the Society will not be able to pay any additional benefits whatsoever as the result of the third valuation. How comes it then that the right hon. Gentleman can say this proposal is not going to make any difference at all to the benefits now paid to the insured? It is absolutely wrong.
I want to touch upon another aspect of the question. Approved societies are able to pay a great deal of their additional benefits by virtue of the fact that they arc receiving good interest On their investments. The investment account is not entirely in the hands of the Treasury in this connection. The approved societies themselves can invest, and have been investing, part of their sums at as good a rate of interest as the Government itself, and consequently they ought to secure the benefit of good administration by way of their investment account. I wanted to make the point that in dealing with the £2, 800, 000 we must bear in mind not merely the loss of that sum but the loss of interest from year to year as well.
We cannot dispose of this Clause without referring to another point in this connection. The right hon. Gentleman has been talking of the Government clipping its hand into the pocket of the Treasury in regard to the medical fund. Earlier in the day he was not quite happy in regard to the representations made to him by approved societies, and he seems to think, and has tried to argue, that the approved societies really are not very critical of the
action of the Government after all. This document has come to hand this evening. I presume other Members have had copies as well. It is the report of a conference held yesterday and called, not by the National Association of Trade Unions approved societies. A conference held yesterday representing 15, 000, 000 ïnsured people was called by the Friendly Societies and they passed the following resolution: I should like to know what the right hon. Gentleman has by way of answer to these people who administer the scheme.
That this Conference of all types of approved societies "—
I presume that in "all types of approved societies "many members will be Conservatives. It would be very interesting to know what the Conservative members of these Approved Societies will have to say in regard to the Government's proposal
called by the National Conference of Friendly Societies, protests against the passage of Clause I of the Economy Bill in its present form, prior to the report of the Royal Commission on National Health Insurance being considered, and regards the proposal to reduce the State Grant as a distinct breach of the pledge in regard to extended benefits contained in Section II of the National Insurance Act, 1924, and as fraught, with great injustice to the 15 million compulsorily insured persons.
The right hon. Gentleman has tried to get the Committee to believe that there has been no breach of faith in this ease. Surely the men and women who administer the scheme and who represent these large bodies the Approved Societies—the Friendly Society movement and the Insurance Companies—cannot all be wrong in regard to a breach of faith. It is possible to suggest that we on these benches are wrong, but the representatives of these fifteen millions of insured persons cannot possibly all be wrong in this connection. I understand that they are unanimous on this point, that they think the right hon. Gentleman should not press Clause I, at any rate, prior to Easter, so that they may have a chance to consider the problem at their annual conferences, Several trade union Approved Societies are meeting this week-end, and it is only fair that they too should have a chance of considering the effect of this Bill upon their funds.
I will give the case of my own Society to show the right hon. Gentleman what he is doing. It is well to quote the case of a single society to show how the proposals will work out in practice. Our society paid last year in cash benefits £27, 935 and in additional benefits £3, 153. Over £30, 000 paid out by a Society of 33, 000 members! If hon. Members calculate what the reduction of the State grant means on £30, 000, they will see how much the 33, 000 members will lose in benefits later as a result of the third valuation. As far as I understand it—I have made a rough calculation—of the insured population, each one will be deprived by this Clause of 5s. 6d. per annum in future.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: indicated dissent.

Mr. DAVIES: The right hon. Gentleman does not seem willing to accept the statement. He will find that. Another I am about to make will come true. It is said—I cannot vouch for the figure—that for the future the head of a family, who is an insured person and entitled to the benefits that ought to be payable, both in cash benefits and treatment benefits, will be deprived during the period of sickness of 8s. per week.
Earlier in the Debate the Parliamentary Secretary made a rather strange statement about. the work of the Consultative Council. He seemed to gloss over the idea that the majority was only 28 to 6 against the first clause of this Bill. I am a member of that Council. He said that the meeting at which the decision of the Council was taken was not a confidential gathering. Every document which I have received as a member of the Council has been marked "Private and confidential, "and I have never divulged to any person outside the Council anything that has transpired at the meetings. I was, therefore, astonished to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that the meeting was not confidential at all. In fact, he has given away the secrets of the Council to-day. The vote of that Council by 28 to 6 against this clause ought to be an indication to the Government of the opinions of those who represent the approved societies of the country. Further, I shall be surprised if the Consultative Council continues its task after the exhibition that we have had to-day. If men are to be called upon to meet once a month or
thereabouts to advise the Minister as to what he ought to do in connection with the administration of Health Insurance, and their decisions are not respected by the Minister, the Council is of no further use. The members of that Council ought not to be insulted. What has been done to them on this occasion is an insult.
I cannot understand the hurry in bringing forward this Bill. The hon. Gentleman gave away his case in another respect. When he was telling us that the Government were very kind to approved societies, he said, in effect, "the benefits are not going to be reduced; they will remain the same "; and then with the same breath he declared that when the Government tried to find ways and means of securing economy with the services of the country, they found this little nest-egg and they determined that they would get hold of it. That was the hon. Gentleman's own language.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It was not my language.

Mr. DAVIES: You are better educated than I am. I thought we were to have a pillow fight to-night between the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and the Minister. but it has not come about yet. It is all very well for the Minister to come and tell us now that the Government, when they looked around for economies, found this sum of money that they could get to relieve the Treasury, by which he meant the Income Taxpayers. But on their own showing, as soon as they came into office at the end of 1924, they appointed a Departmental Committee of Actuaries to inquire and report whether there could he an alteration in the basis of the finance of this scheme. They have been working ever since to find whether they can get some money from this scheme. The proposals of Clause 1 emerge as a consequence. The terms of reference of that Committee are a clear indication that when the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) made the observation that he did some time last year, the Minister must have known then that it was the deliberate intention of the Government to take away moneys from this scheme. And by this Bill they are doing it.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that it was an actuarial Committee appointed by the Royal Commission, and that it reported to them?

Sir K. WOOD: On page 332 the hon. Member will see that the report is addressed to the Chairman of the Royal Commission.

Mr. DAVIES: The terms of reference on page 330 say "I appoint "so-and-so, to be a departmental Committee or actuarial Committee to advise the Royal Commission, etc., etc. That may be a formality.

Mr. BLUNDELL: May I point out that the terms of reference are given by the Chairman of the Royal Commission.

Mr. DAVIES: I am not going to press that point, but the name of the right hon. Gentleman is definitely at the end of the terms of reference, and I took it for granted that he appointed the Committee.

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend appointed this Committee at the request of the Royal Commission, and the terms of reference which they suggested were adopted.

Mr. DAVIES: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to contradict my statement that he appointed the Committee.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I only disputed the deduction which the hon. Member drew from the statement. He suggested that I appointed the Committee in order to find means of getting more for the Exchequer. I then pointed out to him that the appointment of the Committee was incidental to the report of the Royal Commission and had nothing to do with the question of economy.

Mr. DAVIES: It is obvious therefore that we ought to have an opportunity of considering the whole problem. What the Government are doing is not to take the whole report into account, but to take only one or two points of the report to suit their own convenience. I am inclined to read the terms of reference after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. This is what they say
I appoint … to be a Departmental Actuarial Committee to advise the Royal Commission on National Health Insurance actuarially as to whether the present basic contribution … is in fact required for the existing benefits … or whether such
a re-arrangement of the financial basis of the scheme could be justified as would reduce the amount allocated to the present benefits and leave a margin for other purposes.
What are the "other purposes "Nobody could read into those words anything different from that which I read into them. Obviously there was to be a margin for other purposes, and here I come to the real point at issue. There is a margin; and as far as I understand the majority report of the Royal Commission, that margin was intended to, cover additional benefits in respect of dependents. They said so definitely. The right hon. Gentleman must excuse me for being suspicious in this matter. I am suspicious of all the actions of the present Government and particularly suspicious of what the right hon. Gentleman is doing in this connection—or, I should say I am more suspicious still of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is doing through the right hon. Gentleman. The majority report. definitely stated that it would be well if the approved societies were allowed to pay out of that margin additional benefits in respect of dependents of insured persons. That would have been a good thing and, I believe, would have been welcomed by the approved societies; hut instead of paying those benefits the Government take away this sum of, £2, 800, 000 in order, I suppose, to reduce the Income Tax by a half-penny in the £. That is how I sum up the situation. We shall hear arguments in favour of this Clause and we shall deal with them in detail later on; but we protest against the Government taking an undue advantage of the approved societies in this connection. When the right hon. Gentleman says that approved societies had no right to expect this sum for good, let me put to him this question. If he were administering an approved society as I have been from 1912 to 1926 and the two-ninths in respect of all benefits and administration had been paid from 1912 to 1926 without any indication at all of a reduction, without any consultation as to a change of any kind, what would he think? I dare venture to say that, if he was an administrator of an approved society, and there was a Labour Government in office doing this, he would call that a breach of faith.
To sum up the points that I desire to make, they are as follow: The first is that the Government ought not to produce a Bill dealing with national health insurance unless and until they have considered the whole of the Report of the Royal Commission on National Health Insurance. The second protest that I make is that we have only just commenced yet, as approved societies, to pay additional benefits. There are many societies which determined, as a result of the first valuation, to pay additional benefits out of their surpluses, and they had to give up paying those additional benefits because they had not sufficient money with which to carry them on over the quinquennial period My own society is in that position. We have not sufficient money to carry on with the additional benefits which we determined to pay, and it is not right for the right lion. Gentleman to come here and say that to take this sum of money out of the scheme now will make no difference whatsoever. I daresay he will not he in office to reply to this question at the end of the third valuation period. After the action of the present Government in bringing this Bill forward, I feel satisfied that he will not be there.
I want, before I sit down, to put one or two questions to the right hon. Gentlemen. One could imagine, from the Government's attitude, that all the approved societies in the country were paying additional benefits now. How many approved societies after the first valuation, were in deficiency? How many after the first valuation were able to pay any additional benefits at all? How many were compelled to call a levy in order to make up the deficiency after the first valuation? All the results of the second valuation are not out yet—approved societies have not received them—but I would like to know what proportion of those societies in respect of which valuation results have been received have found a deficiency, and how many have disposable surpluses. When the right hon. Gentleman gives those details, will he also give the insured population covered by the approved societies, both those that are in deficiency and those that are able to pay additional benefits?
The very last point I desire to make is this: The difference between the recommendations of the Majority Report of
the Royal Commission and what the Government are now doing is fatal to the prospects of this Bill. The Majority Report says, very definitely, that no change should be made with regard to the insurance of men serving in the forces of the Crown. We shall deal with that later on, but I want to use it as an argument. The Bill says:
There shall be transferred to the Exchequer for the Navy, Army, and Air Force Insurance Fund "—

The CHAIRMAN: That point is not in order on this Amendment.

Mr. DAVIES: I was using it as an argument, because the right hon. Gentleman has told us that they are not depriving any of the insured population of the present benefits which they are receiving. I should like to ask whether he is not taking money from this Fund which will reduce the benefits which ought to be paid under the present scheme to these people in the Army, Navy, and Air Force Fund. The whole of the arguments of the Royal Commission are against the Government doing what they are proposing. I desire to state that as far as the approved societies are concerned—and I feel sure we can speak on their behalf—they are determined to fight the Government on this issue, believing that the Government is not fair to them. They protest against the Government not having consulted them, when they have been consulted over almost everything else in connection with this matter in the past. On this occasion there seems to be a desire to ride roughshod over everybody, and the approved societies will take their stand on this issue. As far as we on these benches are concerned, we will pursue our objection to this measure at every point possible within the rules of this House.

Mr. BLUNDELL: I do not rise in order to express my views on this Bill now, because I have an amendment down which I hope to move later. I only rise in order to protest against the very unfair argument put forward by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies). I venture to point out to hon. Members opposite that they are really injuring the cause they have at heart by adopting the arguments which some of them have put forward. I object to this Clause of the Bill just as much as any hon.
Member opposite, and shall take an opportunity of doing so and explaining why when my turn comes, but to try to make capital out of the Actuarial Committee appointed by the Minister at the express request of the Royal Commission seems to me to be quite unfair, because it had nothing whatever to do with the action of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home) or anybody except the Royal Commission themselves, I would remind hon. Members opposite that when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead made his proposal it was I who opposed it, and not hon. Members on the opposite side of the House. [HON. MEMBERS "No."] Well, it is a fact.
There is one other observation I should like to make, and that is, as Vice-Chairman of the Consultative Council which has been referred to so often, I do not think that that Council feel themselves insulted by the Ministers action in consulting them. I personally was unfortunately not able to be present on that occasion. If I had been I should have voted with the majority against the proposal of the Bill, but I do not think we are a body of men who would consider ourselves insulted because we had been consulted. We are an advisory body, and not a body of dictators.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that we have stated the Consultative Council was insulted by being asked their opinion? The statement was that they were not competent to speak on behalf of the whole of their members.

Mr. BLUNDELL: I think it was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) who suggested they were insulted, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westhoughton also suggested it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No !"]

Mr. WALLHEAD: It was said that the approved societies were insulted.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Blundell), whose services on behalf of the approved societies everybody in this House recognises, and who speaks with great authority on this question, has misunderstood what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon
Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said. What he said was insulting was not the fact that they had been consulted, but the nature of the consultation which took place—the fact that at the time they Mere consulted the whole of these proposals were in draft and had been adopted by the Cabinet and the fact that the Bill was already printed, and that their opinions in so far as they agreed with the Government's proposals were absolutely accepted but in so far as they disagreed with the Government proposals—even though they disagreed by so large a majority as 28 against 6—did not make any difference whatever to a single line in the Bill. I do not think, with all respect to the hon. and gallant Member that the points of criticism which he made against the right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the front opposition bench just now really affect the broad general criticism which has been put forward from these benches. Although it is quite true that when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead issued his threat against the surpluses of the approved societies, the hon. Gentleman protested, I think it is a little unfair to suggest that nobody on this side of the House played any part at all, because certainly a large number of Members both above and below the gangway protested forcibly at the time.

Mr. BLUNDELL: I did not say no one else would have protested. I only pointed out that I was the only one who did protest.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I desire to support the Amendment, because the Clause seems to me to hold out very serious prospects for the approved societies, and will very likely inflict an injury to the hopes of improving the health of the nation. After all, if I or any other hon. Member of this House found himself in straitened circumstances, surely the last economy he would make would be in his doctor's bill for himself and his family. Having grown up in the War, the lessons of the War have burnt themselves into my mind and consciousness, and, I believe, the mind and consciousness of many hon. Members. One of the vital lessons of the War, as expressed by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, is that you cannot run an A1 Empire on a C3 population. I would apply that to the proposals
which the Government are putting forward art the present time. We take great pride in our national finances, because they stand as strong and as stable. as those of any country in the world, and it would be a far prouder boast if we could claim that we were the healthiest nation in the world. It is because I think the health of the nation is as grave a concern as, and, in the existing circumstances, even graver concern than, the finances of the nation, that I rise to support the Amendment.
12.0 M.
The right hon. gentleman who spoke just now from the front Opposition bench pointed out to the Minister certain figures as representing the effect these proposals would have over the whole range of approved societies—figures, apparently, which the Minister of Health was not willing to accept. Although I do not desire to question them in the slightest degree, I will give to the right hon. Gentleman figures on a smaller scale, which, at any rate, he cannot controvert, They affect the particular society in which I happen to be most interested—the Rural Workers' Society of Scotland. They have worked out precisely how these proposals will affect them, and it transpires that the combined effect of the proposals would be that the society would suffer to the extent of £21, 770 per annum, or £108, 850 for a period of five years. Again, they quote the benefits, which they pay, and they say that the proposals of the Bill would necessitate, in the case of men, either an entire abandonment of treatment benefit, or a reduction of sickness and disablement benefits from the rates now paid to the ordinary rates, and in the case of women, not only the abandonment of treatment benefit, but a reduction of other benefits to the ordinary rates, It is clear that this will directly and substantially affect the health of the people insured in the society. The right hon. Gentleman may say "Why do you take that society? It is so easy to generalise from a particular instance. It does not apply to all societies."But as a matter of fact, this society is recognised as being the gilt-edged proposition of the insurance system. It is in by far the best financial position, and if these are to be the effects on the finances of this society, how infinitely more serious will be the effects on the finances of less favoured societies? There are 2, 000, 000
members insured now in societies which pay only the minimum benefits.
I would like now to deal with a few of the arguments which the Minister of Health has brought forward in support of his proposals, and, after all, it is he who is responsible for them. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon. Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said—and I differ from him slightly here—that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was responsible. Surely the Minister of Health is responsible for the finances of his own Department, and for the proposals which he puts forward as head of it, and the committee must hold him responsible. He said just now that the Bill effects no alteration in the benefits which will be paid in this quinquennial period until 1931, and that insured persons will not be deprived of any existing benefits. That is not a very valid argument, because it is a comparatively small point; the great question being what will happen in 1931. But there is one very important way in which the finances of societies will be affected immediately, and that is in regard to the powers of these societies, under Section 26 of the original Act, to contribute to hospitals. They have used those powers on a very considerable scale. The Scottish Rural Workers' Society contributes £9, 000 a year to hospitals, and these important contributions will he struck off. I put that point to the Secretary of the Federation of Rural Workers' Societies. Looking at the prospects in 1931, if these proposals come into operation, he told me, with a full sense of responsibility, and was supported by another official of the Federation, that they would have largely to curtail, or even to eliminate, these contributions. That will certainly affect the members of the societies, because if they do not contribute to the hospitals, naturally they will not receive from those hospitals the same benefits as they get now.
The right hon. Gentleman was very anxious to show that no breach of faith was involved in these proposals. I think no part of his argument carried less conviction to the House. The other day he endeavoured to use in support of it paragraph 249 of the majority report of the Royal Commission. They say in that paragraph
In the pursuit of the task of reviewing the whole scheme of National Health Insurance, and considering what changes are
desirable with a view to making the scheme of the greatest possible benefit to the insured community"—
let hon. Members note those words "the insured community",
we cannot take the view that we are limited by the necessity of adhering to any particular principles on which the scheme was set up.
Obviously there is a very great difference in the position in which a committee has been appointed to consider the problem from the point of view of the insured persons, from that in which they have been appointed to consider the problem from the point of view of benefiting the taxpayer. It would be quite possible and justifiable for you to say you were going to vary the scheme in the interests of the people concerned, but not against their interests and in favour of the interests of somebody outside; undoubtedly, in the latter case, in my view, the charge of breach of faith lies because you cannot get over Section 37 of the Act in which is clearly laid down, that all surpluses shall be applied to the provision of additional benefits. The right hon. Gentleman compared the proposal that he has brought forward with that put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). But there are two important respects in which the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman differed from those of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The material question is whether there was a breach of faith in either case. The reference in this respect made by the right hon. Gentleman who spoke a while ago from the front Opposition Bench, was, I think, to the point, and my right hon. Friend completely disposed of the possibility of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite returning to the charge at all, because he pointed out that under his scheme the Government contribution was in fact increased, and the members of Approved Societies did better than before. In the second place he carried with him the consent and approval of the approved societies. There is all the difference in the world between altering an arrangement that you have entered into with somebody with their consent, and altering it without their consent. It is quite clear that the arrangement now being altered is not only without the consent but against the strong protest of the other party to the bargain.
Again, the right hon. Gentleman said that no society would be brought into deficiency by these proposals. "We are not "he said, "going to throw any society into deficiency by the diminution of the State grant."But there is, in fact, as he pointed out in the sentence which came almost immediately afterwards, a Clause in this Bill which is expressly designed for no other purpose than to support those societies which fall into deficiency. It is not at all clear that the amount allocated will be adequate for the purpose. I should life to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman—

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think we can discuss Clause 3 in detail.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: All I was going to observe was that it is very doubtful whether the money in the Reserve and Central Funds will be adequate to the strain likely to be thrown upon them by the operations of Clause 1. Then the Minister of Health referred to the relief to the societies that had been afforded by the Pensions Act. He said Mt by the passing of that Act the societies had been relieved, in the case of people between the ages of 65 and 70, to the amount of £37, 000, 000. If that is a relevant point, surely it should have been brought out on the Pensions Bill. As a matter of fact the right hon. Gentleman, discussing this very point, said something very different—he was answering the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne). The Committee will, perhaps, bear with me if I remind the right hon. Gentleman of what he said on that occasion. He said:
But is it certain that we can count upon the repetition of the surpluses that were accumulated down to the end of 1923? I beg the House not to take that as by any means certain. I beg them to understand that there are some rather disquieting features of which we have information which render it very unlikely that in future quinquennia the surpluses will be anything like what they were. Take one item, which is an animal charge or about £2, 000, 000 for doctors and drugs. There is at present a balance which has been accumulated, from which that is paid, which will come to an curl in 1926, and that charge of £2, 000, 000 will then fall upon the contributions and the, accumulations of £5, 000, 000, should they continue, will be at once reduced to £3, 000, 000 a year, even if the other factors remain the same. Then there are questions arising out of the rate of disablement benefit and sickness benefit, in both of which there are rather disquieting features. Again, I might suggest that the existence of so
much unemployment means a reduction in contribution surpluses which will be found to have its effect upon the gross surplus.
And that was only last year ! How volatile are the statesmen from Birmingham. If it is a virtue in a politician to possess agility, he need not fear comparison with the mascot of the Welsh regiment to which he referred in the earlier part of his own speech. Then the Minister of Health referred to the rate of interest on insurance funds. But, as a matter of fact, I have got the figures showing how that affects the society to which I have already referred—the Scottish Rural Workers. I find that from 1919 to 1925, the administrative expenses increased over and above with the assumed rate by over £28, 000, and they have received over and above the assumed rate on investments, approximately £31, 000, that is to say, they are only £3, 000 to the good. The ordinary society on a less favourable financial footing would have had nothing like this increase in the rate on their investments. They would have had a greater increase in the administrative expenses and therefore that factor would have outbalanced in the ordinary society the increase they would have got from their increased rates of interest. Then, the right hon. Gentleman says that it is only a fair thing that, as they have got so much more on their investments than they had a right to expect, they should now give up some of that in the way of a reduced Government contribution. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer used an argument the other day which certainly affects that decision. He said how unfair it would he to reduce the interest on War Debt and how unfair it would be to penalise one class of capitalists only. I think that that is a very good argument. Why should the man who has invested his money in War Loan suffer as opposed to the man who has invested in other things? But then why should these societies suffer? In cases where they were free, they were generally patriotic enough to invest in Government securities, Why should the fact that they and other societies that were compelled to invest in Government securities be now brought up against them? Why should that be held to justify a reduction in the rate of contribution which the Government is making, especially when the very circumstances that produced this higher rate
of interest operated to increase the administrative expenses of the societies in a precisely corresponding degree?
Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are never tired of boasting of the financial strength and stability of this country. They say that we are paying our debts to America and at home, and they are constantly telling us about the improvement in trade from week to week. Do not let us go on with the pettifogging methods of economy provided for in this Bill but let us go on paying the whole contribution which has been universally regarded as being rightly due to these people. Our object ought to be to maintain and improve the standard of health of the people of this country. I would remind the Government that when we were discussing the Budget last year there was a question whether we were going to get a reduction of 6d. or 1s. in the Income Tax, and we were told by hon. Members opposite and by the newspapers which support the Government that a reduction of 6d. was no use and would give no relief to industry? Although the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not admit the validity of that argument directly, he admitted it by inference because he so juggled with the figures to show that if you took into account the reduction on the supertax, and other factors, the reduction really amounted to 1s. What relief will the Income Tax gain from these proposals? It is something between a halfpenny and three-farthings and that is all we are going to get out of this measure which strikes such a blow at the prospects of approved societies. This policy reminds me of the celebrated individual called Robin Hood who gained quite a reputation in history by robbing the rich in order to give to the poor. This example was set by similar gentlemen before him and it has been followed by many other gentlemen of the same kidney. I daresay that it was very largely dictated by tactical considerations because—

The CHAIRMAN: There seems to be a certain amount of confusion about these arguments.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: In those days it was a bold thing to rob the insolent baron, in order to give to the humble serf. But now wealth stands trembling before democracy at the ballot box, and the Ministry with
invested courage comes forward to rob the poor to give to the rich. The right hon. Gentleman is proposing to rob the approved societies in order to relieve the Income Tax and the Super Tax payers. He says he is not raiding the surplus. It is true he is not cutting a drain to take the water out of the reservoir, but he is cutting into an aqueduct which is bringing water into the reservoir and cutting it off before it gets there. The right hon. Gentleman was at some pains to show that he had not broken a pledge. His few supporters have not been convinced by him. In fact the only Member who spoke in favour of the Measure on the Second Reading distinctly said he did not attach much importance to that argument, and that, after all, very few Members of this Parliament were Members of the Parliament that gave the pledge. The Bill was hotly contested at the time and if any pledge was given no pledge, in his opinion, ought to have been given. To my mind that is a very dangerous constitutional argument. It is true that each Parliament, is sovereign and can do what it likes, but unless it pays the greatest respect to the pledges entered into by previous Parliaments it will bring Parliamentary institutions into unpopularity and deserved disrepute. The right hon. Gentleman said Members above the Gangway were a poor kind of Socialists because they were so wedded to vested interests and to funds that were allocated for particular purposes. They can speak for themselves. I think the right hon. Gentleman a poor sort of Conservative—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Baronet is travelling a very long way from the merits of the question.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I was answering the argument used by an hon. Member in his speech. I understood we could range over the whole question in so far as it affects National Health Insurance. We are now discussing a Clause which affects National Health Insurance. I know there are Members on that side who agree with the particular principle we are putting forward in this Amendment. This is no Conservative, Liberal or Socialist Measure. It is not a democratic Measure. It is a purely bureaucratic Measure. It is the child of officialdom, conceived by ingenious officials who are directing the point of the economy sword which the Chancellor
of the Exchequer is wielding away from themselves towards the approved societies. It has been introduced by the right hon. Gentleman, who is not only a distinguished Parliamentarian but the ablest bureaucrat of his time and generation. If he had been in Russia under the Czardom he would undoubtedly have been made Prime Minister. Democrats on all sides of the House will put health before the income tax payers, and I am convinced that there will be no benefit in saving three farthings from the income tax payer to compensate the nation for the threat which these proposals offer, not only to the members of the approved societies but to the hope of raising an I improving the general health standard of the country.

Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS: The more I consider this Measure the worse it seems to get. I had hoped that, as has been indicated by the right hon. Gentleman on more than one occasion, the present benefits and the additional benefits which either have already been given, or have been sanctioned under the second valuation would, at least, have been safe until 1931. I think, however, it is obvious, on reconsideration of all the facts, that even the extended benefits are in present danger. I have been impressed, as all I am sure will have been who have come in contact with officials of approved societies, with the ability displayed in the carrying out of their work, and I think their opinions are entitled to very serious consideration. There is no doubt they believe that not only will the further extent ion of medical and other benefits be prevented by this Bill, but also that where they pay at present extended benefit and give extended medical treatment it will be impossible for them in many cases to carry on till 1931. The approved societies are faced with an immediate reduction of income. The facts the hon. Baronet gave in regard to the Scottish Rural Workers' Society are significant of many others. There will be an actual definite loss of income starting from the time this Bill becomes law.
There has not been very much said about the fact that the increased charge for medical benefit, which does not mean increased payment for the doctors, but is simply a transfer of the liability for the last increase from funds which the approved societies permitted to be raided
two years ago, will involve a greatly increased expenditure by approved societies. Therefore, the reduction of the State contribution and the increased cost of medical benefit seem to make it inevitable that the valuable additional benefits given by many societies will either have to be modified or withdrawn altogether. Certainly societies which do not give them now will unlikely be able to give them in the near future. I should like to ask if this is really economy. Take the matter of the dental benefit, which has been given by a number of approved societies, but not by others. There can be no question about the tremendous value to public health of a dental service. Even from the point of view of economy, it would be very desirable that a full dental service should be given by every approved society. It not only prevents many forms of disease, but it gives also greatly increased comfort, happiness and efficiency to the individual, There is no question that this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will prevent the extension of this dental benefit in the cases in which it is already given, and in other cases it will prevent its being brought into operation. The same applies to optical benefit, which is of very great importance for those who require that form of treatment.
Again, take the question of maternity benefit. Various societies have, been able to increase that benefit. At the present time it only amounts normally to £2 and that all goes either to the doctor or the midwife, and the person most concerned is only left with the baby to hold. I think it will be agreed that double the existing benefit, amounting to £4, which, in some societies, has been raised to £5 for the contributions of husband and wife if they are both insured, is about the least that is useful or desirable for maternity benefit. It is extremely important that we should get to the stage of giving that benefit at as early a time as possible, but that again is going to be prevented.
One of the right hon. Gentleman's arguments has been in connection with the relief which is to be brought about by the contributory pensions scheme. This is supposed to relieve approved societies of a liability of 37, 000, 000. I have not heard it stated that, as against that, provision has been made for a reduction of reserve value
and prospective income of societies to an extent roughly equivalent to the amount of that relief. According to Section 39, Sub-section (3) of the Contributory Pensions Act and para. 29 of the Government Actuary's report, reserve values standing to the credit of societies will be cancelled to the extent of £37, 000, 000: Secondly, the Health Insurance contribution has been reduced as from 1st January, 1926, from 10d. men, 9d. women, to 9d. men, 8½d. women. Also, after 1st January, 1928, societies will no longer receive contributions from members between 65 and 70, so it is hardly fair to use the argument that there is nothing to set off against the relief to approved societies in the case of contributors between the ages of 65 and 70.
The circumstances which brought about the higher rate of interest quoted, also, as a justification of the Government's proposals, also increased in similar proportion the expenses of administration.
One of the gravest charges against the Government. in connection with this matter is that they have gone against the recommendations of the Royal Commission, which contained among its members the Government Actuary, and which actually said that the payment by the Exchequer of its present proportionate share of the cost of benefits and their administration should be continued. We cannot escape from the fact that the proposals of this Rill are not an economy at all, but a very grave setback to social progress. It is bad enough to diminish the prospect of continued extra benefit such as the dental, optical and other benefits, but one of its worst effects is that this Bill postpones indefinitely the provision of specialist medical treatment. Practically all the witnesses before the Royal Commission put these benefits first, and the Royal Commission itself puts them first whenever funds are available. I do not think Members realise the tremendous importance which approved society officials and insured persons themselves attach to these services. Picture the position at the present time. If a person is well-to-do and his doctor is in attendance upon him, the doctor may come to the conclusion that a surgical operation is possibly required. Or he may have some doubt as to the diagnosis, and he suggests to the relatives of the patient. that he would like a second
opinion. The relatives say, "Certainly."The doctor can go to the telephone, and call up a specialist, who comes in an hour or two, and the patient gets the full and immediate benefit of that specialist service.
What happens in the case of the insured person? The doctor is in the same difficulty and puts the same, question to the relatives, and asks them if they can afford the fee for Professor So-and-so or some other specialist, and the insured person's relatives say "No, we are sorry we cannot afford it."Then the doctor has to say "We shall have to try the hospital."But I have already pointed out during the Second Reading debate, that, so far as my own country is concerned (and I think the same conditions prevail in England) there is a waiting list in the six main Scottish hospitals of 5, 800 people who arc waiting for beds. The Committee which has just been considering the question of the Scottish Hospitals has reported that many of these people suffer as a result of their waiting and some even die because of the delay, while waiting for a bed to be provided. I do feel that this insurance medical service will never be anything but partial and very unsatisfactory until it includes the fullest possible benefits which modern medical science can give. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say as to the effect this measure will have on normal benefit, and on the small extensions which have already been made, it will be admitted that the prospect of a specialist service is indefinitely postponed. A new arrangement with the doctors is imminent and will take place at the end of this year, but supposing a composite arrangement might be made will it now be made so as to include a specialist service The additional medical charge, in view of the changed financial circumstances of the approved societies, would make their position impossible. I am afraid, therefore, that the specialist inclusive service we might have had next year must now be put off until some unknown time.
As the hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) also pointed out, some approved societies have realised the importance of these specialist. services and have themselves actually made arrangements with hospitals, nurs-
ing associations, dispensaries and other organisations for a certain amount of specialist service and institutional treatment for their members. These will probably be cut off at once because the grants are paid, not out of surplus, but out of the ordinary benefit fund. So the hospital problem, which is deplorably bad in Scotland and also in England, will be made a litle worse as the result of the cutting off of these donations. Altogether, I think it could be easily shown that if there was any money to spare in connection with this fund there are innumerable ways in which it could be spent, not only for the advantage of the insured people but also to make the fund what it was proposed to be at first—a full and complete medical service for the very humblest insurance contributors.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I listened with very great interest to the right hon. Gentleman this evening repeat many of the arguments which he submitted on the Second Reading debate, but I did not discover that he removed the suspicion held by many Members on this side about the very important facts which he advanced from time to time with regard to the Economy Bill. I am one of those who believe that whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say, there is a breach of faith in the legalised robbery that is taking place under the terms of this Bill. The four main arguments submitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought, perhaps, to be examined one by one, so that we can at least see what was behind the Chancellor's mind when he decided to introduce this Economy Bill. He told us on the Second Reading debate that the first main reason for dealing with the question of National Health Insurance was the fact that the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill dispenses with the need for financial provision for those who are sixty-five or seventy years of age. He suggested that an economy of £2, 750, 000 would be quite justified on that ground. The question of the sixty-five to seventy years old person has been adequately dealt with and it seems scarcely necessary for me to repeat the arguments that have been submitted, but, as the movement of members is so great, possibly it will not be out of place to repeat at least the essential arguments. First, might I remind the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, who
is now in charge of the Bill that in future there will be no weekly contributions for members who are between sixty-five and seventy years of age. Secondly, on the introduction of the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill, a reduction was made from 10d. to 9d. a week for men and from 9d. to 8½ for women, and to that extent the contributions of all members have been seriously reduced, so that the particular class referred to in what the Chancellor declared to be the most recent and powerful fact seems to be dissipated in the light of that explanation. Then he says:
The second main fact is the rise in the rate of interest. "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1926; col. 275, Vol. 193.]
Well, I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) and my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. J. Davies) disposed of that second main fact which appears to justify the Chancellor in economising to the extent of £2, 800, 000 per annum. Surely, if the rate of interest has increased because of peculiar circumstances during or subsequent to the war, certain other increases in administration would necessarily arise, and, as the increase for administration due to these peculiar postwar circumstances is pretty well similar to the increase in the rate of interest, the one thing cancels out the other. Although the Chancellor suggests that this increases the regular income from the invested funds by nearly £2, 000, 000 a year, he pays no attention to the increase in the cost of administration when he sets out to reduce the national contribution by £2, 800, 000 per annum. Therefore, it seems to me that, at all events, the first two main facts submitted by the Chancellor in no way justify the economies that are proposed. Then, he goes on to say:
The third fact on which we rely is this: Ever since the beginning of Health insurance the State has followed the practice of meeting every liability which arose, in excess of the original actuarial calculation, out of public funds, hut at the same time we have followed the practice of leaving every unforeseen advantage which occurred on the figures, to enure to the benefit of the insured community."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1926; col. 275, Vol. 193.]
I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman what the Chancellor referred to when he made this statement:
Every unforeseen advantage which has occurred either during or subsequent to the War.
Did the Chancellor mean to imply that, because so many insured persons who had been contributors to this fund joined His Majesty's forces and, unfortunately, met their death on service, they could not possibly be recipients of any benefit from this National Insurance Fund? Is that one of the unforeseen benefits referred to by the Chancellor? If so, I should like to remind him that there is another side even to that situation. First of all, no Chancellor of the Exchequer and, indeed, no Minister of State ought to suggest that there is unforeseen advantage arising from men who, serving their country, are killed prematurely, and no longer can be possible recipients of insurance benefits under any national scheme. While it may be true that certain men who had been contributors for a number of years no longer could be potential recipients of insurance benefits, there are hundreds of thousands of ex-Service men who have returned from the War less capable of following their normal work because their health has been considerably impaired as a result of their War service. That third fact of the Chancellor's is dissipated, and ought not to be used as a means of securing economies on these lines. Then, I think the fourth reason submitted by the Chancellor, and the only other reason, can be seen in his speech on the Second Beading of this Bill. The Chancellor went on to say:
We have to think for the duration of this Parliament. We are, as I shall presently show, confronted every year with steady cumulative increases in expenditure and particularly in social expenditure. At the same time, there will certainly arise in this Parliament new needs and new services, and unless we gather up, where it is possible and proper, the resources at the disposal of the central Government, the closing years of this Parliament will see us utterly unable to meet any new needs without re-imposing harsh and harmful taxation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1926; col. 277, Vol. 193.]
Therefore, it would be implied from this statement that the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to continue, just as they did last year to exploit the unemployment funds, so this year to exploit the National Health funds, then some time later the other social services, so that in the last year or two of the Government's term of office they will be able to supply some of the new needs just before the time comes for them to appeal to the country. I want to bring
before the Minister an individual case of an approved society that I think will dispose of some of the financial arguments he has used this evening. It is perfectly true to say that the effect of this Bill cannot disturb any of the additional benefits that accrue as the result of the first valuation. It is perfectly true to say that the Bill cannot disturb any of the additional benefits that accrue as the result of the second valuation. But what we do suggest that it is bound to do is that it will intercept the additional surpluses at the third valuation. To that extent not only will medical services, but also dental, optical, and special services such as nursing home services, be seriously jeopardised as a result of the withdrawal of this sum of money.
In the case submitted by the deputation representing the rural approved societies which visited the Agricultural Committee of the House last evening, representing 70, 000 members, it was pointed out that the reductions under the terms of this Bill in the Government contributions are estimated to be approximately £21, 700 per annum. Added to the interest which would accrue for the period of five years, there is a reduction in the surplus available for distribution of £108, 000, and on the basis of 70, 000 members one can readily see that there is a reduction per annum per member of that society of 6s. I noticed the right hon. Gentleman nodded his head when the figure of 5s. 6d. was mentioned by another hon Member. But I should like him to reply to these figures, which are based on the 1924 terms. They are not theoretical figures, but are based on facts. If it is going to take away 6s. per member per year from this society, that is going to a considerable reduction in the medical and other services that can be given to the members of that organisation and when one remembers that there are approved societies at this' moment who can scarcely afford to give any additional benefits at all it is pretty obvious that they are going to be held down to the lowest minimum consistent with the original act.
If the Minister is not going to raid the existing surpluses but is intercepting additional future surpluses, then to that extent the medical services are bound to be reduced. I think this Bill—the whole Bill as well as various parts of it—is
unworthy of the best statesmanship in this country or in any other country. Whether the workers of the country agreed or disagreed as to the commencement of the "ninepence for fourpence"National Health Insurance Act, I do believe that the majority of people recognise the value of the Act at the present time and instead of retarding the development of that Act, the nearest approach to an Al nation ought not to be retarded by a Conservative Government who are always telling us of their sympathy for the worker. For those reasons and for many others, I want to support the Amendment, believing that while the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) has said that the present surpluses are not being raided, future surpluses are being made very precarious, well-nigh impossible, and the least that can be said is that the health services, the dental, the optical, the nursing home and other special services, are going to be made well-nigh impossible. They are services which the 15, 000, 000 insured members ought to he receiving and they are real additional health services.

1.0 A.M.

Sir J. SIMON: I have listened to the whole of the Debate on this Amendment, and am convinced that when the vote is taken, if it is based on the arguments that have been advanced, this Clause must be rejected. The Minister of Health is a most accomplished debater, as every Member in the House will admit. lint all the same, when the matter is boiled down it seems to me that it cannot be seriously contended that the Government has got any answer to make to the charge that has been made. First of all, there arises what some people have called a breach of faith. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that that is not a phrase that should be bandied about in the course of party controversy in the House. It is quite true that Parliament has the legal right and the power to alter provisions that have been made by previous Parliaments. I quite agree that o circumstances might conceivably arise where in a previous Parliament assurances have been given, circumstances might so change that on broad grounds of public policy it might conceivably be right to change the terms originally laid down. But after all, what do you mean when you raise this question of whether this does create a breach of faith? You have to consider the circumstances and it seems
to me that the essential circumstances here thoroughly justify the House in that very extreme criticism. This is not a case like that of old age pensions, where the grant was a grant entirely on one side "without consideration "(as the lawyers say) from the other side. It would indeed have been a most monstrous thing, once a Parliament had ever carried a scheme of old age pensions, to withdraw it. I remember, as some other hon. Members no doubt remember, Mr. Balfour saying in this House that he would sooner see all sorts of steps taken by the State rather than that in any circumstances they should withdraw those old age pensions from anybody. That was a case where the House of Commons, on behalf of the country, was pledging public money without getting any actual promise in return. It would not have been a breach of any Parliamentary bargain. That is not the same as this present case at all. I remember the circumstances in 1911 perfectly well as also do many Members of this House no doubt. That session was a session in in which it seemed quite likely at first that this great scheme of National Health Insurance would be shipwrecked. It seemed so probable to the then Conservative party that Mr. Bonar Law was rash enough to announce that if he came into power he would repeal the Act tomorrow and had to write to the papers to explain that that was not what he meant. It was with great difficulty that the scheme was established, and it was done as the result of most elaborate and detailed consideration with two bodies—with the doctors and the approved societies. You might then as well come done to the House to-day and announce to the medical profession that you had decided to alter to the doctors' disadvantage the arrangement made with them as to say to the approved societies that you are doing that by them. The approved societies were not clamouring to work the scheme. Many of them looked at it with great suspicion and I think the present Leader of the Opposition took a view which was rather critical to the scheme and expressed it to the House. This was not being welcomed in every quarter as though it was an undoubted advance in which everyone was pushing the thing forward. It was established this country as a result. of give and take
negotiations—as far as anything of that sort can be; by Parliament bargaining. The Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) took a leading part in all these transactions. If you had told the approved societies in 1911: "now I might as well tell you that we are to have a flat rate of benefit based on what is the actuarial equivalent of the benefits for a boy of 16, but in 15 years things will improve because reserves will be available, but I want to put in this provision that in 15 years' time Parliament will be perfectly free to reduce the contribution, "you would never have got this scheme at all.
While you cannot produce some document signed and sealed which would be called a contract as a result of Which these approved societies think the Government are breaking a bargain, the approved societies, who know this subject from A to Z, are convinced, every one of them, that that is what, in fact, Parliament is being invited to do. Can there be any question which more obviously satisfies the natural tests as to whether this is a breach of a. bargain? The approved societies gave something for the promise. They came into the scheme; they undertook to work it. To a large extent many of their traditional methods were at least overhauled. They had to accept a whole code of regulations and control to which they were not accustomed. They found the State claiming to come in and interfere in matters in which they had hitherto been their own masters, and they did this wholly from beginning to end on the distinct understanding as to the State contribution. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health more than once has made great play of the circumstance that two-ninths was not the original figure for men and women. But it is true that the whole of the actuarial calculations were based on two-ninths. Why women were at first treated in a rather different way was not because of the actuarial basis, but because the real reason was that the earnings of women were then, in many cases, so low that to take out of their wages 4d. was to take out more than they could stand. While the phrase used to be 9d. for 4d. in the case of men, in the case of women it was, as a matter of fact, 8d. for 3d. The
consequence was that the State contribution was 2d., which was a quarter of the 8d. When the women were brought into line with the men you did not reduce the State contribution.
What is more to the point is that that change was made after many women had gone into the munition factories and other work and were earning bigger wages than before. The change was made with the assent and co-operation of the approved societies for the purpose of securing better benefits for their women members and in order that they might stand on the same basis with the men. There is no resemblance at all between the modification of the original arrangement made with the assent of the approved societies for that purpose and what is now proposed which is simply taking away the State contribution to some extent from what was the very basis and foundation upon which the approved societies were brought into the scheme. It does not necessarily prove that the criticism is right because there is such a hubbub amongst the approved societies, but it is a very serious fact because it is upon these approved societies we have to depend to work this scheme. If this were a Socialistic Government saying "Let approved societies get out, we will manage the whole thing according to purely bureaucratic principles from Whitehall, "it would be another matter. But this Government are saying "We want the approved societies to work the scheme."The Government have never, except in a formal sense, consulted them and they find themselves faced with protests from one end of the country to the other. These people. say we have been looking forward to increased benefits and at this moment you choose to take away £2, 800, 000. So far as there ever can be a case of departure from a clear mutual understanding, which was intended to be permanent, that is the case. The Member for Oldham (Mr. Duff-Cooper) said that 1911 was a long time ago, but these societies were invited to come into the scheme not for a year or two years, but as the permanent machinery by which the scheme was to be worked, and the circumstances may be such that after a certain period of time, thanks to this fund being what it is they will get a benefit which at first their members could not get. So far as it is a ques-
tion of Parliament keeping faith with the approved societies, to my way of thinking I may say I do think this is one of those cases where Parliament without exposing itself to the reproach of breaking faith with an immense body of opinion relying on us being as good as our word, cannot alter the arrangement.
When you come to the secondary arguments used by the Minister of Health you see what they are. This time He did not employ the famous argument that money that used to earn 3 per cent, is now earning 5 per cent., because he is much too quick-sighted not to see what a hopeless argument this is. The approved societies have not chosen to invest in public funds. They are compelled to do it. They were told by the law what funds they had to put their money in. Here is a Government which says, to a particular section of the community which is compelled in many cases to put its money in Government funds, "You are the people whom we say we are justified in depriving of the fruits of your investment."It is not surprising that on second or third thoughts the Minister of Health has come to the conclusion that that is a cook that will not fight and leaves that argument out.
So much for a breach of faith. What about, the other ground which the right hon. Gentleman has suggested? He says it very unpleasant to have words like "breach of faith "bandied about, and so it is. Consider the matter on its reasonableness. Is it really reasonable? He says he was waiting for the report of the Royal Commission. It is a report which was only published at the end of February. It is a thing for which the approved societies themselves have waited. Unless I am misinformed one of the things which induced the approved societies to take on their own shoulders the extra burden of doctors' remuneration was that at the same time this inquiry was promised—I should like to be confirmed if I am right—the approved societies said it was time they had a proper inquiry to see in what directions the scheme should be extended or improved. Here it is. I hope I am not doing my fellow members a great injustice when I say there are possibly some of them prepared to vote for the Government who have not read this report. None of us can read everything. But consider where you are. The report contains a vast amount of important
material. It shows that while nowhere is medical benefit defined as meaning such benefit as you can get from a general practitioner, nevertheless the construction has been put on medical benefit by the Insurance Commissioners that it is medical assistance of that general standard. The argument no doubt was that since any qualified doctor could be a panel doctor and since everybody in the scheme had his doctor, it was not an unreasonable view that what was meant was the sort of benefit which the ordinary general practitioner could give. Take the case of the servant in your own house. The principle reason why she is not particularly favourable to national insurance is that she does not like the idea of going to a panel doctor, and although the doctor says hers is a case for a specialist's advice she cannot have it.
The Commission say the most important thing you could do is to use these funds which are now becoming available to give to the insured person the right which all the rest of us have got, if the case calls for a specialist to have a specialist. Nothing would do more to satisfy the public about the working of national insurance or to promote national health than that. It is a great hardship on poor people that at the moment they have taken the help—no doubt honestly given— of the general practitioner they cannot take a specialist while the rest of us who have more money can take a specialist. The Government in substance are delaying the day when that can be done.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman has already suggested to hon. Members on this side that they have not read the report. Surely, had he read the report, he would know that the recommendations in respect of specialists cannot possibly be affected by anything in this Bill.

Sir J. SIMON: It is quite true it will need an amendment of the law to do it by amending one of the statutory benefits. But it still remains true that to the extent to which the Government by this Clause will take away the £2, 800, 000, they are reducing that which would otherwise be available. Of course they are; and they are postponing and delaying the opportunity to enlarge and complete the scheme which ought to be completed in respect of national health insurance. I
am perfectly willing to be corrected if I am wrong on any detail, but the principle on which I am insisting is perfectly right and is not to be got over by a purely technical point. Let me take the second point—the additional benefits, of which there are fourteen. These in the original Act are part of the statutory scheme. They are not subsequent suggestions made by a future generation. Here you have the approved societies who have been able in greater or less degree to bring into play these additional benefits. Is it disputed that, if the Minister of Health carries his Clause, he is pro tantogoing to postpone the time when the various approved societies can bring into play those additional benefits? Is that denied?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman cannot put everything down to this £2, 800, 000. I have pointed out that he has mis-read the report. The report recommends that the £2, 750, 000 should he used subject. to the Governments' policy, and there is a paragraph in the report to that effect. Assuming it is not used for the purpose, they make a definite recommendation for what it shall be used for and he must not say that the benefits are to be delayed.

Sir J SIMON: The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly fair. I want to be quite clear. To the extent to which £2, 800, 000 a year will go, if the Government takes that money, it does pro tantodelay and postpone the opportunity for approved societies to bring into actual operation, such one or other of these additional benefits originally contemplated, and which they may wish to introduce. The Commission recommends as urgent and important one particular additional benefit, namely, dental treatment—the treatment of the teeth of the people. It is not too much to say that the Clause and which the Government are now at this hour trying to get through the House of Commons will have this effect, that it will delay and postpone the setting up in this country as soon as otherwise might he set up the effective operation of that additional benefit.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In the first place dental benefit is now available as an additional benefit to the number of something like 11 million members. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman said,
I do not think he intended to convey this impression—that the Royal Commission recommended the Dental benefit as a particular benefit which ought to be taken first. That is not so.

Sir J. SIMON: I think I said quite clearly that I was taking an exemple. If I made a wrong impression I gladly stand corrected. I do not want 10 misrepresent anything. But I do feel very strongly about this because I do think that what you are doing here—of course the Government's majority can do it—is breaking faith with the people. My last point is this. The Minister of Health cannot have it all ways. There is no doubt whatever that the people who drew up this report. intended and assumed that the present proportionate share of the cost of benefits in their administration should be borne by the State. The concluding paragraph in that part of the majority report shows it quite plainly. Here you have this particular provision in paragraph 153:
We therefore make the definite recommendation. … This implies that, in our opinion, there should be no increase at the present time in the rates of contribution under the scheme.
Dealing with the position of the insured person the report goes on to say:
We consider also that the scheme should be self-supporting subject to the payment by the Exchequer of its proper proportionate share of the cost of benefits and their administration.
I find it quite impossible to think in this concluding paragraph, the Commission in its report is in any way supporting or encouraging the taking away or the reduction of that proportionate contribution. It is really designed to recommend changes on the basis that that proportionate contribution remains the same. Here is a thing which nobody can believe is a coincidence or accident. The Minister has studied this subject minutely and when he introduced his Widows' and Pensions Act he dealt exhaustively with this class of service. He has had quotations from his speech quoted again and again in this Debate. But it is an extraordinary coincidence that the moment when it is found out that it will be neither a breach of faith or on other grounds unfair, the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes this £2, 800, 000 from societies because he is at his wits end and must do something to
balance his Budget. Everybody knows perfectly well that this is a desperate effort to get money somehow, so that the Budget after Easter may be presented without new taxation, and that the people who have to stand this exaction are people to whom Parliament gave a certain assurance.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Although the Debate has continued for a few hours, I am sure that nobody will say that a moment has been wasted, because we want to consider it from the point of view of the people affected. This first clause of the Bill is probably the most important of all the Clauses. There are others still wry important. I wish to associate myself with practically everything the right hon. and learned Member has said. Certainly in so far as he has dealt with the question of a breach of faith, promise, agreement, contract, whatever it may be, it is a serious breach of an understanding that was made very definitely. It is an understanding that was made very definitely, which, had it not been made, the Bill would never have gone through at all. I say that very categorically, because I happened to be one of those who happened to be responsible for the negotiations that were carried on at the time. I then led the Labour party in the House, and through the Labour party, very important negotiations were conducted with that Government and the right hon. Member for Carnarvon. It was on certain agreements and certain pledges that the trade unions and the benefit societies came into the scheme. May I say first of all very briefly, taking the case as I see it, that the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Blundell), who referred to his having be 3n the sole voice that was raised when the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home) raised this question first of all, I think his memory has betrayed him. It is quite true that on 2nd July, when an Third Reading of the Bill was under discussion the hon. Member alone spoke, because it was towards the end of the debate and nobody else could get in. But his memory has played him false regarding the other debate when the position we took up and are now taking up, was quite clearly laid down.

Mr. BLUNDELL: I referred to the occasion on which I spoke, not the occasion on which I did not speak.

Mr. MacDONALD: Quite naturally, but I would remind the hon. Member that the occasion on which he did not speak preceded the occasion on which he did speak. The position is this: Section 4 of the Act of 1911 is a contract. As I have said, the trade union movement was very doubtful as to the benefits of this scheme. It was an unknown land. The friendly societies, with whom I have not so much to do, were also very unfriendly, but the line of argument taken up by the Government in the House of Commons was this: If you come in and if you agree to pay your share of the insurance which we consider to be necessary, we will supplement your payments in order that certain benefits may be assured. The trade unions said: is this going to be a tripartite scheme? and the Government said yes. When the agreement was made, and when Clause 4 was finally settled it was left in this way, that a benevolent Government, having surveyed the state of national health, came to the conclusion that a national scheme to protect and promote that health was necessary, that the scheme should be based upon insurance and that the parties to the insurance should be the workmen, the employers and the State. So far as their obligations were concerned these three were on terms of absolute contractual equality. If this contract is to be valid it has to be valid with the consent of the three parties. Now we are in this position that of the three parties only one has the initiative of action—the Government. It has come here to say: "Of our free will we have decided to change our contributions."It is no question as to whether the change will or will not affect the benefits. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it will affect the benefits. It is admitted. You cannot take money away and say you are as rich after as before.
Let us take it by stages. The right hon. Gentleman is, I know, in a very difficult position. The countenances of his supporters behind him are troubling him, but he cannot make the case that having taken £2, 800, 000 for this purpose or having reduced his payments into the insurance fund by that amount., the insurance fund is as good a property of the owners, the beneficiaries under that fund, as it was before. You cannot contend that, and that is the position. In
1911 the bargain was: We three shall go together. We offer certain benefits. We know that those benefits are to be over-insured on the present rate of contribution, but the over-insurance will be valued at certain periods. When the over-insurance valuation has been declared the surplus will be absorbed in extra benefits, some of which are declared, and some of which are undeclared. The Government say: "We find that the over insurance is considerable, and that as a matter of fact a great deal more can be given for the money than is being given."Then, having been assured of that, it says, not as it ought to have said: "We will bring that case before our two partners in the insurance—the workmen and the employers—and we propose to say to them: We are going to reduce our contribution because the extra benefits should go on."They do not do that. They say: "We do not care about the employers. We of our own free will and our own initiative and not as partners in a triple agreement but as a separate entity are going to decide that our insurance payment is going to be reduced while the insurance payment of the others will remain at tile former standard."It means in regard to the insurance payments from workmen and employers which entitled them to higher benefit than they got, that the Government, having discovered what the valuation was, ask the workmen and employers to continue to pay the uneconomic payments while they themselves take the advantage by a reduction of the payments. Really, that will not do. I am perfectly certain that already hon. Members opposite are allowing their minds to consider the consequences of a policy of that kind. It is a most extraordinary thing that the State should use its authority to break bargains or contracts—use what words you like—when convenient to them. It is not a question of fairness. It is a question of convenience.
The closing words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) about the extraordinary coincidence of two things—the issue of a Report of a Royal Commission and the needs of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—are certainly a matter of very grave reflection, and hon. Members who are going to vote for this Clause had better clearly understand
that by that vote they are declaring that a Parliamentary majority can tear any contract into a thousand shreds and regard every bargain as a mere sheet of paper. "But, "says the right hon. Gentleman, "I am not taking balances, and I am not touching the pool; we are only stopping the flow into the pool, so that when the next valuation comes there will not be so much in the pool and extra benefits will have to be curtailed."What does that mean? Is there any difference between that and touching the pool from an insurance point of view? I am sure that a good many members of this House have taken the precaution to insure themselves against certain eventualities. Has any one of them ever insured himself in, say, a mutual insurance society without calculating what the possibilities of the insurance were as well as the actual benefits promised to them? As a matter of fact an insurance implies possibilities, and to deprive an insured person of possibilities that were held out to him when he entered insurance on the ground that the actual accumulated funds, the£s. d., as it were, the actual balances shown on the books at the time of the alteration are not being reduced—that is not., if I might say so, an honest and a full consideration.
In this case the insurance is ninepence for fourpence, or whatever it was—so many pennies from the workers, so many pennies from the employer, and such and such a proportion from the State. That is going to be. the insurance that is going to enable the people of the country as a whole to enjoy the benefits of medical attendance and the grouped social services round about, and it has gone on, and the State offers that as a benefit The State did not merely offer doctors' attendances as a benefit. The State offered medical attendance and drugs and so on, plus possibilities. The possibilities were to be valued and whatever happened to the valuation—whether there was to be a surplus or a deficit—the insurance that was to be given was the value of fourpence, fivepence, and two-ninths at a given time.
The Government are stepping in and saying: "I am not touching your balances in 1926; whatever is realised is going to remain; but I am compelling you, the beneficiaries whom I have driven into this compulsory insurance by my
pledges and by the agreement I came to, I am compelling you to go on paying your part of the insurance while I am going to deprive you of the realisation of the possibilities of your payments on the original contract, because it does not s[...]it me to go on keeping my part of the obligation."That is a very accurate statement of the situation. When I held up the mirror handed to me by right hon. Gentlemen opposite so that I might see my own face in it, I thought it was possible that I might do a thing like this, that. I might break contracts, rob, and go to people or classes or groups that had accumulations of wealth, and raid it. I never believed it of myself, but sometimes one is deceived in oneself, and it has been asserted so often by right hon. and hon. Members opposite regarding us that I am not at all sure, standing as I do begging them to be honest and to fulfil their contracts. If they are poor and poverty-stricken and must retrench and take away the £2, 800, 000, let them go like honest, straightforward partners in business to their partners and do it only after agreement with them. If the sum credited to each individual insured person is greater than is necessary to entitle him to what you consider a reasonable amount of benefit, then he is as entitled to have h s contribution reduced as you are to have your contribution reduced.
I take the three partners: the workmen, the employers and the State. The three of them ought to have reductions if there is going to be reduction at, all. That, to me, is the principle of the thing. I have not followed this since those days of 1911, when we had very difficult negotiations, and when the Labour movement was very much divided as to whether it would take this on or reject it altogether. But my right hon. Friends round me have kept a day to day contract with the working of this, and they have produced facts to the Committee, which I think must have, impressed the Committee, of the working of it and of the effects on the working of the scheme of the withdrawal of the £2, 800, 000. But I am interested in this departure in political policy. I think it is an exceedingly bad departure. I think the beginning is very easy and that it is very easy to continue it. It is very easy to apply it in other directions. The House of Commons claims this authority, as I suppose it
will this morning, and hon. Members will be brought into the lobby to give the Government a majority in favour of this. Very well, you have set the principle, you have given an example. We are prepared for a principle of breach of principle which you say is honest, which you say is wise, which you say is justified in view of State necessities. Very well, I hope somebody will not come after you who will apply the same principle to such a wide extent that it will mean a thorough discrediting of the whole credit of the State.

Sir K. WOOD: The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has, at any rate, added a new phase in the discussion we have had to-night on the question of pledges. The Committee will remember that this afternoon the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) and the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Bo roughs (Mr. Lloyd. George) put their case against the Government on the ground that there. were some statements made in the course of the discussion when the 1911 Act was introduced into the House of Commons which were being flagrantly overlooked to-day. It is a very curious thing that both these right hon. Gentlemen and, I suppose, most hon. Members of the Opposition had a very long time to look up these speeches, but at any rate from my own. point of view I have not head a single statement this afternoon which hears out any of those allegations. I heard most of the speeches, and I have also had an opportunity of looking them up. The pledges given to the societies in 1911 were two. One was that, as a result of their good management and efficiency, they would get any surpluses and enjoy the benefit of them. The second was that, if they cared to form themselves into different groups and, say, a lot of good lives banded themselves together into a society, then they should have the advantage of that selection. But in the statements that have been read to us this afternoon somebody has endeavoured to impose a third suggestion which was never made at any time, or given in this House, or has been borne out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby this afternoon—that whatever your surplus may he, and whatever the basis of the actuarial arrangements of the Act may be, these were to be retained as a neces-
sary consequence. Now the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon (Mr. MacDonald) has added a third one. In this case he is not resting his case on any of these statements, and I am not surprised at it, but on a section in the Act of Parliament.
A statement was made to the Royal Commission by a gentleman—whose name I will mention later—when there was no question whatever of any such issue coming before the House, when he was urging, as far as these surpluses were concerned, that they should belong to insured persons as a whole. There were four gentlemen present. He said:
We suggest that Parliament was entitled to assume from the Actuaries' report that over the whole insured population the contributions would exactly square with seven-ninths of the costs of the then normal rates of cash benefits and medical and sanatorium benefits, and that, therefore, the pledge, in so far as any legislation can be a pledge for all time, did not contemplate any surplus over the whole population. We cannot agree that the claims of societies as a whole in this respect extended beyond the expected expenditure in the aggregate upon normal benefits. We suggest that the obligation of the State does not really extend beyond providing the necessary initial paper reserves to enable people of all ages to pay the flat rate contribution for the normal rate of benefit; indeed, we suggest that that was the sole purpose of the State grant on benefits originally. We say further that, had Parliament known that over the whole insured population the normal rates of benefit could have been purchased for a lower rate of contribution, the statutory contribution would have been that lower rate.
2.0 A.M.
Let me tell the Committee who it was who made that statement. It was made by Mr. Kershaw, the President of the National Association of Trade Union Societies, who was accompanied by three of his colleagues. Therefore at any rate, so far as the judgment of those gentlemen was concerned, there was no question whatever about the position of Parliament, and he was the first to recognise that obviously if Parliament enacts a Clause of that kind they could always alter it.. He stated the exact position of Parliament. and the Societies at the time the 1911 Act was introduced. It was based on conjectures. Owing to the good management and efficiency of the Societies, the Minority Report says the very huge surpluses are accounted for. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon
has forgotten what the predominant partner in this partnership has done over a very extended period. This partner has done two things. On several occasions he has altered the finances of this scheme altogether. I was very surprised at the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, talking about alterations in the scheme because the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) described it as one of the alterations of the Act. lie said that the House would understand that in coming to the conclusion about the alteration of benefits those who were promoting or were behind the Act of 1918 had to say to the approved societies that were in surplus: "We are going to take something from you. You were told that you would have the full benefit not merely of your intermediate but of your deferred benefits, which would come in in 20 years. We arc going to reduce the sinking fund, which will shift into the distance the deferred benefits."It was en that basis, the hon. Member for South Shields said, that the agreement was come to prior to the Act of 1918 which resulted in the sinking fund being diminished so that the ultimate benefits would be put back. No one, therefore, can get up and say that the finances of this scheme have never been altered, because on two very vital occasions the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs altered them himself. If you sum up the position of partnership and what has happened since 1911 the fact is that whenever there has been a deficiency in this fund it is the State which has found the money. If you are going to deal with fairness and equity you must consider that in the course of this scheme, since 1911, the State has found no less than twenty four extra millions of money. I do not think any one to-day can say that the other contributors have been treated unfairly or are being treated unfairly with the proposale now being made. If you assume that there is a partnership there is a very big balance upon the side of the State. In connection with the contribution, I may say that on the part of the other two parties—the employers and the employed—their contribution has been reduced already. Some doubt—and I confees I was amazed to hear it—has been thrown upon the financial stability of
the approved societies as a consequence of these proposals. All sorts of hazy ideas have been expressed. Figures of an altogether unverified character have been read out and the Government Actuary's report has been ignored.
An hon. Gentleman asked me some questions about the insurance fund on the first valuation. The figures are striking as showing the strength of these societies. At the end of the first valuation there Was a net surplus of over £17, 000, 000. He asked me how many societies had surpluses—9, 745 societies and branches had surpluses comprising, I think, some 13, 000, 000 members; there were 10 cases of societies covering a membership of only 3, 249 in which the assets and liabilities exactly balanced, and there were deficiencies in 28 societies and 397 branches with a membership of only 32, 320. The total amount of deficiency in these societies was only £80, 919. In only four cases was the contingency fund insufficient to meet the deficiency.

Mr. R. DAVIES: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether £17, 000, 000 is disposable surplus.

Sir K. WOOD: No I do not think the whole of it was disposable. A certain portion is to be reserved and balances go forward. That does not take away from the strong position of these societies. What the Government actuary says is:
Taking the results as a whole no student of social conditions can fail to be impressed by the financial strength of the position of National Health Insurance and the capacity of the system to administer some of the most urgent needs of the industrial population.
I hope no Member will leave this House thinking that these benefits have been in pe[...]il, or are in peril to-night. I think it is desirable, in conclusion, to fate exactly what this scheme means to the finances of the societies. In the first place, the surpluses which have accrued to the societies on 21st December, 1925, are left absolutely undisturbed. No society will be placed in the position of having to deprive its members of any benefits whether statutory or additional which a society contracted to provide under the second valuation, or would have been able to provide under the second valuation, by the changes we are now to make. In other words, it is not until December, 1931 that anything found in the financial arrangements of this scheme will affect the finances of the societies at all. In that
year it is perfectly true it must make a difference by the amount in question, but I would like to read what the Government actuary himself says about the surpluses of these societies in future, for all sorts of wild statements have been made that the societies are never again to have any more surpluses; that when this scheme comes into operation it means no additional benefits in the future, that the insured population must content themselves with the ordinary benefits under the Act—an absolutely mistaken idea. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Actuary's Report he will see in paragraph 33 that he says:
Surplus funds will continue to arise.
There is every probability, as far as one can speak at this time, that in the third valuation the surpluses of these societies may very well be as large as they are to-day. I remember very well that at the end of the first valuation many members of societies and members of Parliament thought that was going to be the end of surpluses of approved societies, whereas at the second valuation surpluses were nearly double. I would say to hon. Members that in voting for this proposal they are voting for a necessary proposal, having regard to the conditions in which we are living—a very modest one, one which, I think, will not affect the surpluses of the societies as they are to-day. We all desire to see these surpluses continued. The right hon. Member for Spen Valley pictured some servant going to the panel doctor and not getting some specialist treatment. I want the Committee to understand there is nothing in this proposal to prevent the Government carrying out the recommendation of the Royal Commission in that respect myself am hopeful that so far from their being a. reduction of benefits we shall shortly be able for the first time in this country to give specialist treatment, as outlined in this report, to the insured people in this country. I would say that while we all of us dislike having to cut down the funds of any institution we are taking a step which at this moment is vitally necessary and will not do any great or irretrievable harm to the societies.

Mr. SKELTON: Might I ask whether, in the hon. Gentleman's view, this reduction will not increase the number of societies showing a deficiency on the valuation of 1921?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir; so far as I can see certainly not. If the hon. Member reads the actuary's report on the Bill he will see that special provision is made to deal with the very few cases of societies liable to go into deficiency as we shall be able to explain when we come to the Clause concerned.

Mr. SKELTON: Can the hon. Member estimate the number of societies that will go into deficiency?

Sir K. WOOD: Accurate figures cannot of course be given, but provision is made.

Mr. THOMAS: There is at least one advantage to be learned from the last speech. It is that at last Members on the opposite side of the House are beginning to understand not only what we are discussing but what is going to be the effect of it, The very pertinent and pregnant question put by the hon. Gentleman opposite, and not answered, is what is disturbing Members not only on that side of the House but on this side as well, but curiously enough it is left to this stage to get the newest explanation. The Government now say "It is true we are going to rob you, but you will not discover it for five years."At last we have got this admission.

Mr. WESTWOOD: On a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to undress himself in this House?

Mr. THOMAS: I do not think the Committee will be so interested in that kind of proceeding. We have always urged one simple proposition, that by taking £2, 800, 000 from this fund the approved societies must suffer. The way they are suffering is this. Remember this is a fixed amount every year. When the third valuation takes place—and when the hon. Member refers only to the second valuation he means that pending the third valuation no additional benefits will be paid to anybody—there will be five times £2, 800, 000 less to be distributed to the members. He knows that, so far as he and his party are concerned, in five years' time they will not have to meet the difficulty. [An HON. MEMBER: "Optimism!"] No, common-sense, added to stupidity of hon. Members opposite on this Clause. It is quite true, he says, they will not discover it for five years, and when they do it will be the other people's duty to put it right. I ask now what I asked earlier. What do hon. Members
opposite say to listening to extracts from reports of which they never heard before—extracts from a Royal Commission report which this House has never had an opportunity to debate? You have heard in the last sentences of the hon. Member's speech that the Government do contemplate doing something in conformity with the Report. It is the first time we have heard it, and we hear it at 2.15 in the morning. Here is a quotation from the Departmental Actuaries' Committee to the Royal Commission. These are the people quoted as authorities. They are appointed by the Minister to give actuarial advice. Here is the answer to the question just put:
We are, however, constrained to point out that the imposition of new burdens would result in increased deficiencies where deficiencies now exist.
In other words, they state plainly and bluntly that in 10 per cent. of societies, in which it is admitted there is a deficiency, this proposal of the Government would increase the difficulty. They go on to say:
Or in the creation of a deficiency where on the present basis a surplus would have appeared. As the valuation reports have shown, the societies vary widely in their financial position and only margins which have emerged on the present basis have protected a number of them.
In other words, it is only the margin which is now being taken away which has kept some of them straight.
The further expenditure contemplated by our terms of reference necessarily involves the reduction of these margins and this is bound to have adverse results on the solvency of the weaker units. It is impossible to form any definite opinion as to the membership of the societies which the new burdens would place in difficulty, one of the difficulties of the position being that the numbers would grow as the surpluses hitherto carried forward in sub-normal cases became exhausted and the full price of the new charges had to be met without the possibility of assistance from this source. We are led to expect that, after making the best estimates of which the case admits, that the effect of the new burden would be to create eventually a condition of deficiency in societies representing about 10 per cent. of the whole insured population.
Ten per cent. of 15, 000, 000, that is their estimate—not 300, 000, as somebody said from the other side. I am quoting from the Actuaries' Report to the Royal Commission. Then they go on to say this:
This is a grave prospect, and although the machinery of the central fund is sufficient, we believe, to meet the situation,
we do not think we are going beyond our duty in inviting the Royal Commission to consider the effect upon the credit of the whole system of the adoption of changes such as might produce deficiency to the e dent here indicated on the valuations of the societies—even though the means of subsequent adjustment existed and were ample for the purpose.
I am entitled now to answer for the benefit of hon. Members opposite what the Minister refused to say. One of his strong supporters said: "Will you really tell me what are the numbers?"And after some hesitation he said: "I believe 300, 000."I am speaking within the recollection of the House. At all events, I w ill take the estimate of the Actuaries' Report, and say that is the best authority. Now, says the hon. Member, look what the predominant partner, the State, has done? The original Act provided 10s. per week sick benefit, which was increased in the existing Act to 15s. per week, and this was the 9d. for 4d.—10s. originally provided increased to 15s. That is sick benefit. I presume there is no one who is going to argue that this is too much. Taking the cost of living as it is to-day, 72 per cent. above pre-War, above the time when this contract was entered into, the value of the 15s. is just 8s. 9d. per week, or 1s. 3d. less than the original Act provided. Taking disablement benefit, there is a difference of 8d., both to men and women, and on the maternity benefit there is a difference of 6s. 9d. Then we have the hon. Gentleman getting up and saying to the House: "Remember what the predominant partner has already done."Yes, he has succeeded in creating a situation that

makes the original bargain 1s. 3d. less than it was when they entered into it. Then he proceeds to argue that the State is justified. I would like him to answer a simple question put by the Leader of the Opposition. The simple question he put is this. Does he remember any amendment to the Insurance Act where two partners were not consulted? Has there been any amendment of the Insurance Act affecting the administration of the Societies where both parties were not called into consultation long before anything was presented to the house of Commons? The right hon. Gentleman need not answer, because the simple answer is: He knows none; and he knows perfectly well that he himself has been a party to many negotiations prior to a Bill being introduced. We are entitled to ask why this change to-day. It can only be attributed to the silent majority, but I again repeat there has been no answer. You have violated every pledge. You have ignored the approved societies. You have said to them in substance: You do not count. If that be your position, will you go to consult your constituents upon the amendments which you are going to vote upon. That is all we ask. We are content to be judged by that result.

Mr. Chamberlain rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put: "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 209; Noes 121.

Division No. 110.]
AYES.
[2.27 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Briscoe, Richard George
Dalkeith, Earl of


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)


Alnsworth, Major Charles
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Davidson, Major-General Sir 1. H.


Albery, Irving James
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Buckingham, Sir H.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Alexander, Sir Win. (Glasgow, cent'l)
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Dawson, Sir Philip


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Eden, Captain Anthony


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Butt, Sir Alfred
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Elliot, Captain Walter E.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Campbell, E. T.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)


Atkinson, C.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Everard, W. Lindsay


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.


Balniel, Lord
Chapman, Sir S.
Fermoy, Lord


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Fielden, E. B.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A, D.
Frasor, Captain Ian


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Collox, Major Wm. Phillips
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.


Blundell, F. N.
Couper, J. B.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Boothby, R. J. G.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Ganzonl, sir John


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Courthope, Lieut-Col. Sir George L.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Gee, Captain R.


Brass, Captain W.
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Goff, Sir Park
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Grace, John
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Sandon, Lord


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Macintyre, Ian
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Greens, W. P. Crawford
McLean, Major A.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Grotrian, H, Brent
Macmillan, Captain H.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Shepperson, E. W.


Gunston, Captain Q. W.
Makins, Brigadier-General E
Skelton, A. N.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Malone, Major P. B.
Sianey, Major P. Kenyan


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kine'dine, C.)


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Meller, R. j.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Hammersley, S. S.
Merriman, F. B.
Smithers, Waldron


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Somervllie, A. A. (Windsor)


Hartington, Marquess of
Montell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Stanley, Cot. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden, E.)


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Haslam, Henry C.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C, 
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Henderson, Capt.R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Morrison. H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Henn, Sir Sydney H
Murchison, C. K.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Neville, R. J.
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Hills, Major John Waller
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Templeton, W. P, 


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Nuttal, Ellis
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Thomson. F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Holt, Captain H. P.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Pilcher, G.
Ward. Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Horlick, Lieut-Colonel J. N.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hudson, R.S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Pownall. Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Radford, E. A.
Wells. S. R.


Huntingfield, Lord
Raine, W.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Ramsden, E.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.
Rentoul, G, S.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Jacob, A. E.
Rice, Sir Frederick
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Wise, Sir Fredrio


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Ropner, Major L.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Lamb, J. O.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Rye, F. G.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Salmon, Major I.



Loder, J. de V.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Looker, Herbert William
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Major Cope and Captain Margesson.


Lougher, L.
Sandeman, A. Stewart



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Gillett, George M.
Lunn, William


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro)
Gosling, Harry
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J.R.(Aberavon)


Ammon, Charles George
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Mackinder, W.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
MacLaren. Andrew


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Groves, T.
Maxton, James


Barnes, A.
Grundy, T. W.
Montague, Frederick


Barr, J.
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Morrison. R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Batey, Joseph
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Oliver, George Harold


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hardie, George D.
Palin, John Henry


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Harney, E. A.
Paling, W.


Briant, Frank
Harris, Percy A.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Broad, F, A.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Bromfield, William
Hayday, Arthur
Potts, John S.


Bromley, J.
Hayes, John Henry
Purcell, A. A.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Buchanan, G.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Charleton, H. C.
Hirst, G. H.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Clowes, S.
Hirst, w. (Bradford, South)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Cluse, W. S.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Compton, Joseph
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sitch, Charles H.


Connolly, M.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Siesser, Sir Henry H.


Cove, W. G.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Dalton, Hugh
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Snell, Harry


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kelly, W. T.
Stamford, T. W.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Kennedy, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Day, Colonel Harry
Kirkwood, D.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Dennison, R.
Lansbury, George
Sullivan, Joseph


Duncan, C.
Lawson, John James
Taylor, R. A.


Dunnico, H.
Lee, F.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Garro-Jones. Captain G. M.
Lindley, F. W.
Thurtle, E.


Gibbins, Joseph
Livingstone, A. M.
Tinker, John Joseph




Townend, A. E.
Westwood, J.
Windsor, Walter


Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Whiteley, W.
Wright, W.


Varley, Frank B.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Viant, S. P.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)



Wallhead, Richard C.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Williams T. (York, Don Valley)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Wilson, c. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Warne.


Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Question put accordingly, That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 118; Noes, 209.

Division No. 111.]
AYES.
[2.37 a.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro)
Hardle, George D.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Ammon, Charles George
Harney, E. A.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Harris, Percy A.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Sitch, Charles H.


Barnes, A.
Hayday, Arthur
Siesser, Sir Henry H.


Barr, J.
Hayes, John Henry
Smith, Ronnie (Penistone)


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Snell, Harry


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bowerman. Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, G. H.
Stamford, T. W.


Briant, Frank
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Stephen, Campbell


Broad, F. A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Bromfield, William
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Sullivan, Joseph


Bromley, J.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Taylor, R. A.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Buchanan, Q.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Thurtle, E.


Charleton, H, C.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Sllvertown)
Tinker, John Joseph


Clowes, S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Townend, A. E.


Close, W. S.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Collins, Sir Godirey (Greenock)
Kelly, W. T.
Varley, Frank B.


Compton, Joseph
Kennedy, T.
Viant, S. P.


Connolly, M.
Kirkwood, D.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Cove, W. G.
Lansbury, George
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Crawford, H. E.
Lawson, John James
Warns, G. H.


Dalton, Hugh
Lee, F.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lindley, F. W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Livingstone, A. M.
Westwood, J.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lunn, William
Whiteley, W.


Day, Colonel Harry
MacDonald, Rt. hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Dernison, R.
Mackinder, W.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Duncan, C.
MacLaren, Andrew
Williams, Dr. J. H. (LIanelly)


Dunnico, H.
Maxton, James
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Montague, Frederick
Wilson, c. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Gibins, Joseph
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Gillett, George M.
Oliver, George Harold
Wright, W.


Gosling, Harry
Palin, John Henry
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Granted. D. R. (Glamorgan)
Paling, W.



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. w.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Groves, T.
Potts, John S.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
 Charles Edwards.


Guest, J. (York, Hernsworth)
Sakiatvala, ShapurJi



NOES.


Actand-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset. Yeovil)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James r.
Brown, Brig -Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Buckingham, Sir H.
Dawson, Sir Philip


Albery, Irving James
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Eden, Captain Anthony


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Edmonson, Major A. J.


Alexander, Sir Wu. (Glasgow, cent'l)
Butt, Sir Alfred
Elliot, Captain Walter E.


Allen. J.Sandoman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S.
Campbell, E, T.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Applin, colonel R. v. K.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth.S.)
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Fermoy, Lord


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Chapman, Sir S.
Fielden, E. B.


Atkinson, C.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fraser, Captain Ian


Balniel, Lord
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E, 


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Bamston, Major Sir Harry
Couper, J. B.
Ganzonl, Sir John


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Gee, Captain R.


Blundell, F. N.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham


Boothby, R. J. G.
Crookshank.Col. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Brass, Captain W.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Goff, Sir Park


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Grace, John


Briscoe, Richard George
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Grotrian, H. Brent
Macintyre, Ian
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Waller E.
McLean, Major A.
Sandon, Lord


Gunston, Captain D, W.
MacMillan, Captain H.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Malone, Major P. B.
Shepperson, E. W.


Hammersley, S. S.
Manningham-Bulter, Sir Mervyn
Skelton, A. N.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Margesson, Captain D.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Hartington, Marquess of
Meller, R. J.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Merriman, F. B.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Haslam, Henry C.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Smithers, Waldron


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Monsell, Eyres, Com, Rt. Hon. B. M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxl'd, Henley)
Moore, Lieut. Colonel T. C. R, (Ayr)
Stanley, Col. Hon.G.F. (Will'sden, E.)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootie)
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur p.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. G.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Moreing, Captain A. H, 
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Hills, Major John Waller
Murchison, C. K.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Hoare, Lt.-Cot. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Neville, R. J.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Holt, Captain H. P.
Nuttall, Ellis
Templeton, W. p.


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k. Nun.)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Thorn, Lt-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Tryon, Rt.- Hon. George Clement


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberi'nd, Whiteh'n)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. p.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Pilcher, G.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Huntingfield, Lord
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Radford, E. A.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Jacob, A. E.
Raine, W.
Wells, S. R.


Kidd, J. (Linilthgow)
Ramsden, E.
Wheter, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Rentoul, G. S.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Rice, Sir Frederick
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Lamb, J. Q.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Ropner, Major L.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Loder, J. de V.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Wood, E.(Chest"r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Looker, Herbert William
Rye, F G.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Lougher, L.
Salmon, Major I.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)



Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Major Cope and Captain Bowyer.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.

The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment I call is that in the name of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Blundell.)

Mr. BECKETT: I want to ask permission to move now that the Committee should report Progress on the ground that we have—

The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Blundell.

Mr. BECKETT: On a point of Order. Am I not allowed to give my reasons for wanting to move to report Progress?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not doing it in proper form.

Mr. BLUNDELL: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, to leave out from the word "shall"to end of the Sub-section. and to insert instead thereof the words
have effect as from the fifth day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-six, as if the following words were added at the end of the Section except in the case of additional benefits when the whole cost of such additional benefits and the expenses of the administration of such additional benefits
shall be derived from the surplus which is certified by the valuer to be disposable in the manner provided in this Act.' 
I would like to say one or two words on the words proposed to be left out before I explain the meaning of the words that I propose to insert. A great many arguments have been put forward against the provisions of this Clause. Some of the arguments were good, and some of the arguments were indifferent, but, as I approach this matter entirely from a national health point of view and not at all a political point of view, I am not much concerned with arguments as to the alleged breach of faith. What I am concerned with is the effect that this Clause will have on the scheme of national health insurance. I have listened most carefully to the speech of the Minister of Health and I am sure that all the statements that he made were strictly accurate, as they always are, but he did not say anything which reassured me and my hon. Friends as to the effect that these Clauses would have on the future of health insurance. It is quite
true that no one anticipates that there will be any reduction of benefits prior to 1931, but those of us who have taken an active part in the working of the Health Insurance Act feel quite convinced that there must be a very considerable reduction of benefits after that date. Speaking for myself, I have had the best figures I can obtain got out by societies with which I am connected, and they all tend to show that there must, be, even in the very best societies, a very considerable reduction in benefits in 1931, and there must be, accordingly, a progressive reduction after that date. With regard to the quotations from the Actuaries' report made by the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), I do not wish to repeat them, but I would remind hon. Members that one of them pointed out that the actuaries estimated that the effect of this Bill would be to put societies containing about 10 per cent. of the insured population into deficiency. The right hon. Gentleman also quoted various other passages from the report of the Actuaries to the Royal Commission indicating the serious consequences that might ensue if the proposals that were being put forward were adopted. The report of the Actuary was based on the assumption that the Government were going to continue to pay two-ninths, and also on the assumption that, though the margin was going to be used for new purposes, it would still remain in the National Health Fund.
Therefore, I submit that the condition proposed by this Clause is even more serious than the condition contemplated by the Actuary's report. It must obviously be much more unsafe if you actually reduce the Fund than if you use some of the monies in the Fund for other purposes. What the actuaries say about the effect on the credit of the whole system of insurance if a large number, or even a considerable number, of societies are put into deficiency, is that it must have a very bad effect on those who are banded in the approved societies, and upon the credit of the whole insurance scheme. I would also point out that under this scheme the making good of these deficiencies that a-e anticipated will he provided for by the other approved societies: and, pro tanto, their funds will he depleted. The
actuaries in their very carefully worded report call attention to the fact that the growth of new surpluses will be materially checked. There are all kinds of ways of checking the growth of anything. If you drive a motor car up a steep hill without changing gear, its speed will be gradually checked, and eventually it will stop. I venture to suggest that that is what is going to happen to the surpluses of the National Health Insurance Fund.
3.0 A. M.
The Amendment which I Wish to bring to the notice of the Committee is one which will give the State a considerable saving of money, quite comparable with that effected by the proposals of the Government. But it will not affect the basis of the scheme, and from the point of view of the approved societies will be infinitely preferable, quite apart from the fact that it does not take money away from them. If hon. Members will come with me for a moment to the farmyard, I will give them an illustration, because farming is a subject with regard to which I am more at home. The modern farmer who is producing milk divides the rations of his cows into two parts—the maintenance ration to keep the cow in good condition and in good health and to provide, say, a gallon of milk, and the productive ration which is given according to the amount of milk the cow is yielding. If the farmer were asked to economise in the rationing of his cows he would, of course, object on the ground that it was not good economy, but if he did have to do so, he would economise on the productive ration rather than on the maintenance ration. Now, the Minister, under these proposals he has put forward, proposes to attack both of the rations of the approved societies. Not only is he attacking the productive rations of the cow but he is also removing some of the maintenance ration at the same time. If it is necessary for the Government to get some money from the approved societies—and I am quite willing to accept the assurances of the Government that that is necessary—I think that they should take it from the productive ration and not from the maintenance ration of the approved societies. What I suggest is that the Government should continue to pay the 2/9ths contribution towards the cost of the statutory benefits and that when that is done the Government
should have no further liability, and any additional benefits should be paid out of the funds of the societies themselves. That means that the Government would save a considerable sum of money without upsetting the finances of the approved societies. They would save, according to the actuary's Report, £1, 200, 000 in the year 1926–1927, £1, 500, 000 in the following year, and thereafter an average of £1, 200, 000. Those figures are taken from paragraph 2 of the Report of the Government Actuary, (Command Paper No. 2603). There would be a further saving in addition for the benefit of the state. The margins that have been referred to by the actuaries reporting to the Royal Commission are estimated to be able to purchase benefits to which the Government contribution would amount to £500, 000 a year. That comes from page 4 of the same Command Paper. Therefore, the Government would save under these two headings £1, 700, 000 a year and, in addition, I do not propose to oppose the saving the Government effect on the cost of stamps—£200, 000 a year. Therefore, as my amendment stands, the Government will save £1, 900, 000 a year, and in the year 1927–1928 an extra £300, 000, as compared with £2, 800, 000 under their own scheme. From the point of view of the approved societies the advantages will be very great. The basis of the Act would not be interfered with. From the point of view of the State an automatic increase of the State grant would be entirely checked. The Government have several times referred to the automatic growth of statutory funds, always growing and always drawing more money from the State. Automatic growth will cease and the Government will get considerable advantage without wrecking the Health Insurance scheme as it stands at present. It will allow some societies to make surpluses and be able to continue additional benefits which, I very much fear, they will not be able to do after 1931, unless some change is made in the present proposal. Again, and it is a very important point, no new deficiencies will be created. One of the most objectionable features of the Government proposals is that they deliberately create deficiencies, although means are provided for making them good. If this proposal be accepted,
there will be no need to discuss Clause 3. It will automatically disappear because no new deficiencies being created there will be no need to make them up. By striking out Clause 3 there would be no need to raid the Central Fund as proposed in the Bill. Approved societies regard the taking of this money in order to make good the deficiencies of other societies as a raid on their surpluses. It may not be so to a large extent, but the principle remains and it is objected to by the approved societies. If the Government could see their way to accept this proposal, I believe they will meet with a great deal of agreement amongst the members of the approved societies. Surely it must be worth a good deal when they are bringing in a Bill which is bound to be unpopular, if it can be brought in, not perhaps without protest, but with more or less of an understanding so that it will not be made a long standing grievance.
Treatment benefits are, in the opinion of those well qualified to judge, going very largely to disappear under the scheme as put forward. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has probably washed his teeth at least once a day as long as he can remember, but in that respect, until perhaps recently, he was one of the minority. I do not believe that until comparatively recent years, a large part of the population ever took care of their teeth. I once asked a sergeant what kind of a man a recruit was, and the reply was, "A most respectable man, sir. Cleans his teeth, sir."The Minister in his speech stated that dental treatment was now being extended to 11, 000, 000 insured persons. If a large number of these people will no longer be able to take advantage of this treatment, it will be a step back in our social service. It seems to me that the Conservative party have really a special interest in this matter. It was pointed out by my hon. and learned Friend for the Exchange Division (Sir L. Scott) in a debate not long ago that the Conservative party stands for the maintenance of private enterprise, and for private enterprise making profit. It is, therefore, necessarily committed to the protection of the masses of the population in a very particular way. I think that another Conservative principle comes in at this point, and that
is the maintenance of the character of our people. There is no scheme which more than the Health Insurance scheme helps to develop the character of the people. Under that scheme the insured people manage to a large extent their own societies. Through that management they acquire a wider citizenship than they would have otherwise; they take a greater interest in civic life and that leads them to take part in municipal affairs and other activities. Anything that is going to damp the ardour of the men carrying on this work for no salary or nearly always when a salary is paid a nominal salary, will be a disastrous thing for the progress of our country. The Manchester Unity of Oddfellows, the greatest of all friendly societies with the greatest prestige, has intimated that they would be prepared to accept this Amendment as a settlement of the question, if they lead other societies will follow.

Major GLYN: The Amendment has been put down on the paper in order to draw attention to how those in friendly societies can contribute their share towards the need for economy, and yet, permit the credit of the societies to remain unimpaired, and for this reason I hope that the Government will not turn down this Amendment without most careful consideration. By this Amendment, the smaller rural societies, which are usually extremely well administered, will be saved from going on the deficiency list. It will he recollected that in 1911 when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) held a conference of the: Rural Societies, special emphasis was laid on the importance of rural workers coming into the scheme and deliberate promises, as I think, were given which have been kept up to now. I feel very strongly that, whatever arrangements are contained in the proposals of this Economy Bill for making good deficiencies in societies, that will not compensate members who belong to them and who will undoubtedly feel that the credit of their society has been damaged.
The other reason why I consider it important that this matter should be considered by the Government is that our party stands for thrift and private enterprise and we do stand for trying by every means we can to raise the social conditions of the country. Those of us
who sit for rural constituencies feel that in those agricultural areas where the rate of wages is not high, although it is as high as the industry can afford, it would be absolutely disastrous if anything were done to make it more difficult for the men to carry on their daily existence. Those of us who realise what the agricultural labourer's wife does with the small amount of money which comes into the house cannot but have the greatest respect for her. Two societies in my constituency (the views of whose representatives I have heard recently) heartily support this amendment. It gives an opportunity to members of friendly societies to do what they can and I would like to say for my part if it is the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in opening his Budget to reduce further taxation, I would far rather he maintained his taxation and did not carry on this part of his economy proposals.

Mr. THOMAS: A statement has been made by the Mover of the Amendment that he is acting with the authority of the Manchester Union of Oddfellows.

Mr. BLUNDELL: Yes.

Mr. THOMAS: This is the resolution sent to me by them:
The Board of Directors of the Manchester Union of Oddfellows Friendly Society met in London yesterday to consider the Economy Bill, passed a resolution protesting against the proposal to diminish the State grant, the effect of which would be to penalise a section of the community who are compelled to be insured so that another section not insured may benefit. They further urged that the Government pledge of 1912 should be redeemed in full, and that the extension of benefits proposed by the Royal Commission should not be delayed indefinitely, if not rendered wholly impossible, as would be the case if the policy now proposed is to be adhered to.
Is the hon. and gallant Member not aware that there has been a conference this week where all the friendly societies were present as well as the trade union and industrial societies and that the resolution quoted here is only one of many which were adopted? What is the hon. Member's authority?

Mr. BLUNDELL: May I read the resolution?
Copy of Resolution adopted by the Directors of the Independent Order of Odd-fellows Manchester Unity Friendly Society at a Special Board Meeting held at the Bonnington Hotel, London, on Monday, 29th March, 1928.

Mr. THOMAS: Mine is dated 15th March.

Mr. BLUNDELL: Economy Bill.
That while confirming the opinion expressed in their previous resolution that no variation in the original contract under the National Health Insurance Act should be made the Board of Directors are prepared to support the scheme outlined by Mr. F. N. Blundell, M. P. for the Ormskirk Division, for the amendment of the Economy Bill, and that every effort be made to urge the Government to adopt the amendments with the view of their substitution for the Government's present proposals for the abolition of the two-ninths State Grant and substituting therefor one-seventh in the case of men and one-fifth for women contributors.
I may say the whole board of directors attended this House the day before yesterday, and repated these declarations to me personally and to eight of my friends.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My lion, and gallant Friend the Member for the Abingdon Division (Major Glyn) expressed the hope that the Government would not turn down this Amendment without due thought. I can assure him that I would not think of turning down any Amendment without due thought, but more particularly one which comes from the hon. Member for the Ormskirk Division (Mr. Blundell), because he is recognised as an authority who has studied this question, and has rendered great services to the scheme, without being actuated by any political or personal motives in this matter. Before I come to examine the proposal which he is making, I want to take notice of some observations which he made at the beginning of his speech when he referred to the passage of the Actuaries' Report which had been quoted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas). I think my hon. Friend did not really, if I may say so, quite appreciate the force of the paragraph to which reference has been made. I am not quite certain that the right hon. Gentleman appreciated it. The Actuaries in this paragraph spoke of a possible increase of societies which might be thrown into deficiency and spoke of that event as being due to certain new burdens. The new burdens were the assumption of the full cost of medical benefit and the utilisation of the rest of the margin, which they had found, in some way or other
which was to be determined by the Royal Commission. It does not make the slightest difference so far as deficiency is concerned whether the margin were to be used for extended benefit or for economy. The effect is exactly the same of removing a. certain amount out of the available margin. Therefore my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk was mistaken in saying that if the proposals in the Bill were passed the effect would be even more serious than the Actuaries contemplated. Th effect would be the same. They say:
We do not think we are going beyond our duty in inviting the Royal Commission to consider the effect upon the credit of the whole system of the adoption of changes such as might produce deficiency to the extent here indicated on the valuations of the societies.
What do they mean by that? They mean that if it were disclosed to the world that there had been a great increase in the deficiency of societies that fact would generally injure the credit of the societies as a whole, and they therefore went on to make a proposal which they thought would avert the danger. The proposal they make is not to take the funds of other societies as my hot. Friend suggested. It was to utilise the Reserve Suspense Fund for this purpose. I want, finally, before I leave this point, to remind the Committee that the Royal Commission themselves had before them this report of the Actuaries. They had before them the remarks of the Actuaries and also the proposals which were made before them. The Commission, having all this before them, were satisfied that they were safe in recommending that the margin left over should he used for extended benefit, and ample provision was made by the proposals of the Actuaries to meet any difficulties. If the Royal Commission was justified in that conclusion we are justified in the proposal we are making to the Committee.
I now come to the hon. Member's Amendment. It is one which in one sense is really startling. It proposes to maintain the two-ninths as the State's contribution to normal benefits, but it proposes to abolish entirely the State contribution to additional benefits. This is an Economy Bill, and, therefore, my hon. Friend will not misunderstand me. In the White Paper which accompanies the Bill there is a
little summary at the end of the various economies which, it is hoped, may be effected by this Bill, and by our proposal it is expected that we shall find £2, 800, 000 a, year. What is going to be found by my hon. Friend's proposal? I call the attention of the Committee that it does not begin to operate until July, 1926. Therefore, it does not begin to save money as from the beginning of this year, but only about halfway through. Consequently, we shall not get as much in the first year out of the proposals as we shall get in subsequent years. In the first year, I am told, we shall save £1 300, 000, as against £2, 800, 000 subsequently. From the financial point of vie w I am going to lose, if I accept my hon. Friend's proposal, £1, 500, 000 in the first year out of my £2, 800, 000 and £1.000, 000 a year after that. I think my hon. Friend will admit that, looking at it from that point of view, the proposal is not exactly inviting.

Mr. BLUNDELL: I think my right hon. Friend is rather under-estimating the amount of my proposals. According to the Actuaries' figures, they are £1, 700, 000.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am taking the figures that are given to me by the Actuaries. I do not think my hon. Friend will find in the Actuaries' Report any actual figures, but it is the advice given to me by the Actuaries that I lose £1, 500, 000 in the first year and £1, 000, 000 a, year after that. Let me next look at the proposal from another point of view. The first thing I notice is that to carry it into effect it would be necessary to reconsider all the existing schemes of additional benefits which are in operation. All of them have been calculated on the assumption that the State is going to help these benefits. We should therefore have to suspend benefits now in operation, have to stop them, have to withdraw them and calculate afresh on a new basis whether these particular schemes of additional benefits are practicable or not. That seems to me to be at the very outset an extraordinarily difficult position to take up. It is one thing to say that your proposals may mean that in five or six years you will not get something you are getting now; it is quite another thing to say you must now give up something you are enjoying and you must allow your present benefits to be curtailed.
There is another difficulty. It should be remembered that the proposals of the Bill for the reduction of the State contribution do not make the same reduction in the case of men as in the case of women. The reduction in the case of women is really only one-forty-fifth part of the present contribution, but my hon. Friend is proposing to abolish the grant both in respect of men and women so far as additional benefits are concerned. Of course, he may say, "Ah yes, what I lose on the women I gain on the men, "and if all were composed of equal numbers of men and women that might possibly enable us to get over that particular difficulty. But my hon. Friend knows that that is not so. There are instances of cases where societies are entirely composed of women and other cases of varying proportions between men and women. A proposal of that kind would bear much more hardly upon women than upon men, and might give rise to numbers of inequalities and unfairnesses. Then, my hon. Friend says, that it would be worth while to confront many difficulties and, perhaps, many inequalities in an arrangement of this kind if thereby you could get complete agreement, an agreement with the approved societies which would remove from their mind all sense of bitterness and enable them to accept the proposals as they stand. I agree. But is my hon. Friend in a position to tell me that this does represent an agreed solution? I know he is not. I will accept what he said about the position of the Manchester Unity, but it is not to be taken as representing the society as a whole. As a matter of fact. I have information that the rest of the society is dead against the proposal. We have not a proposal that can be said to be calculated to produce the harmony which we all desire. May I point out a still further difficulty. The hon. Member knows that the valuations of the societies do not all take place at the same time. For purposes of convenience they are divided into groups, one of which is valued one year and the next group in the succeeding year. Now what has happened in the case of the second valuation? The first group was valued in 1922 and the benefits which were assured and which were possible as a result of the surplus disclosed by the valuation began last July. The second group of societies
was not valued until 1923, and the additional benefits will not come into operation till next July. How is it going to work? It is not to operate until next July so that the first group of societies has not only the State contribution, but the unreduced contribution on a year's basis, and the second group will have the State contribution reduced from the very beginning of the operation of their benefits. That seems to me to create an injustice between one group of societies and another. Already there has been some soreness among the members of the second group who thought the earlier group got some advantages, and in addition were able to get a, reduced contribution which was denied to the second group.
It seems to me again that this proposal will press with particular hardship on rural societies. In the early stages of the National Health Insurance Act we heard how the rural workers at that time said that the rate of sickness was less than that of the workers in the industrial towns, and that therefore they ought to have a reduced rate of contribution. What has taken place? They were told it would not matter, that they would have to pay the same contribution for the same benefits in spite of their lower sickness rate, because they would get a bigger surplus than other people, and also the State contribution. Therefore they would he able to get additional benefits to the full value of their contribution. What are they going to say if we abolish the State contribution? Will they not say they are being deprived of one of the advantages of which they were assured? Then there is one other difficulty. We have heard it stated over and over again that if there was a definite promise made to the societies, it was that they should have the full benefit of their careful management. Careful management does not simply mean office work under special supervision, and seeing that the clerks do not make mistakes. It means particularly that the carefully managed societies make proper investigations into all the claims presented to them, and take great care not to pay benefits to members not properly entitled to them. In order to see that the statutory conditions are complied with it is necessary that
they should have sick visitors to go round and see whether the man who is claiming to have sick benefit is complying with the conditions, does not go out an hour too early in the morning or stay out an hour too late at night, and does not take remunerative work. Again, the services of the regional medical officer are brought in to supplement the opinion of the local doctor, and in every possible way well managed societies try to make certain that they are not paying away benefits to people who are not entitled to them, and paying them away at the expense of honest members.
The result is that by careful management these societies accumulate larger surpluses than the societies who are lax in their management. To say now that we are going to abolish the State contributions on the additional benefits arising out of the surpluses and confine the contributions to benefits under the Act seems to me to be the absolute negation of all fairness and all propriety. For taking care that they do not pay claims that ought not to be paid you are going to penalise them and make them receive a smaller contribution from the State, as against people who have not made proper investigations. That seems to me to come nearly to a breach of the pledges given, and I would also say this—that it is not only the past that we have to think of in this matter. It is not only the injustice between one society and another. We must also think of the future. We have to consider that the incentive to good management is the fact that it means the accumulation of surpluses. If you are going to take that away you pay away money in statutory benefits and the tendency will be for societies to spend their money in normal benefits. Therefore, on financial grounds, and on moral grounds, it seems to me my hon. Friend's proposal—although I fully recognise the excellence of his intention, which it does not seem to me to carry out—does not represent a practicable scheme. I think that people are too pessimistic about the future of the societies. The reserves of the societies are partly contained in paper values and partly in cash.
Now as the redemption of the reserve value goes on, there is a constant transference from the paper reserves to the cash reserves, and that means an increasing amount of reserves is all the
time earning the higher rate of interest. That is another factor which is going to make for greater prosperity in the future. I do not know that I can hope that the arguments I have used should remove all the fears which my bon Friend has expressed. I can only say that, for the reasons I have stated, I cannot accept his proposal as it stands. Perhaps he will have another shot. Perhaps, after the criticisms I have passed on this proposal, he will reconsider it. I assure him I am not closing my mind to any modification in the Bill which does not. go to the root of any of its vital principles. To cut the saving in half is obviously more than I could be expected to accept, but if he can suggest some way of covering the proposal which will go some way towards meeting the fears he has expressed and at the same time will not cut away my savings until they are no longer perceptible, I shall be glad to discuss matters with him.

Mr. THOMAS: I beg to move "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to the extraordinary situation we are in at this, moment. There are 15, 000, 000 insured persons and we have just heard from the Minister that if his hon. Friend will see him arid make a proposal that is going to satisfy, not the Oddfellows but the 15, 000, 000 insured persons, then he will be prepared to consider it. Had he not better see the people who can speak? The Hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Blundell) cannot. The right hon. Gentleman, I am quite sure, wants to consult those who will speak with authority. He half hinted in answer to the first proposal that the hon. Gentleman not only could not bind anybody but that he knew he could not bind anybody.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Could not bind everybody.

Mr. THOMAS: That being so, surely we are reaching a stage now where we ought to be bargaining. The right hon. Gentleman says quite clearly that if he was satisfied that any proposal he could accept would be accepted by the majority of approved societies, then he would be
prepared to consider it. I put it to him that it is not to the hon. Member for Ormskirk that he has got to direct that message. This curious fact emerges. The directors of the Oddfellows' Society, we are told, have agreed to a proposal in this House of Commons—and please observe they are the directors of the Society, the people who are administering the Society, who are supposed to know all about it—and now we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman the biggest riddling of their own proposal that has been administered in the House.

Mr. BLUNDELL: I think the right hon. Gentleman is doing the Manchester Unity directors an injustice. The proposals may have been riddled, but the Manchester Unity preferred the proposals to those of the Minister.

Mr. THOMAS: I suppose the Manchester Unity know much more about the administration of the Society than you do, and the right hon. Gentleman was dealing with the effect of your proposals on the administration. I am drawing attention to the fact that, so far as they were concerned, they have preferred them to the other. The right hon. Gentleman points out that they would be absurd and ridiculous in practice. I was tempted to look favourably on this proposal when I heard that it meant £1, 300, 000 less, because if I am going to be robbed I prefer £1, 500, 000 than £2, 800, 000. But I do submit that the debate has now reached that stage where, if the Minister wants agreement, there is an opportunity open to him, but it is not for him to reach agreement with any Member who cannot speak with any authority, but it is for him to reach agreement with those who have got to administer the Act, and that is the approved societies as a whole. Therefore in order to give him that opportunity and to save Members from being more confused in choosing between their friend behind and the Minister on the Front Bench, I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."

Question put, "That the Chairman do report. Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 116; Noes, 200.

Division No. 112.]
AYES.
[3.47 a.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Harney, E. A.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hlilsbro')
Harris, Percy A.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Ammon, Charles George
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hayday, Arthur
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barker, G. (Momnouth, Abertlliery)
Hayes, John Henry
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Barnes, A.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burniey)
Sitch, Charles H.


Barr, J.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, Rennie (Penlstone)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Briant, Frank
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Stamford, T. W.


Broad. F. A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Stephen, Campbell


Bromfield, William
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Bromley, J.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sullivan, Joseph


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham. Silvertown)
Taylor, R. A.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thomas. Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Clowes, S.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Thurtle, E.


Cluse, w. s.
Kelly, W. T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kennedy, T.
Townend, A. E.


Compton, Joseph
Kirkwood, D
Varley, Frank B.


Connolly, M.
Lansbury, George
Viant, S. P.


Cove, W. G.
Lawson, John James
Wallhead, Richard C.


Crawfurd, H. E, 
Lee, F.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dalton, Hugh
Lindley. F. W.
Warne, G. H.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Livingstone, A. M.
Watson, W. M. (Dumfermilne)


Davies Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Westwood, J.


Day, Cotonel Harry
Mackinder, W.
Whiteley, W.


Dennison, R.
MacLaren, Andrew
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Duncan, C.
Maxton, James
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Dunnlco, H.
Montague, Frederick
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llaneily)


Glbbins, Joseph
Morris, R. H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Glliett, George M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercilffe)


Gosling, Harry
Oliver, George Harold
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grenfell, D. R. (Giamorgan)
Palin, John Henry
Windso Walter


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Paling, W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Groves, T.
Pethick- Lawrence, F. W.



Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Purcell, A. A.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Hardie, George D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
 Charles Edwards.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Courtauid, Major J. S.
Hartington, Marquess of


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. sir George L.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Haslam, Henry C.


Albery, Irving James
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxl'd, Henley)


Alexander, Sir Win. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Henderson. Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Davidson, J.(Hertf"d, Hemel Hempst'd)
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wlifrid W.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hills, Major John Waller


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Atkinson, C.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Balniel, Lord
Eden, Captain Anthony
Holt. Capt. H. P.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Everard, W. Lindsay
Horlick. Lieut.-Colonel J. N.


Blundeli, F. N.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Hudson, R, S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Fermoy, Lord
Hume, Sir G H.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Fielden, E. B.
Huntingfield, Lord


Brass, Captain W.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.


Briscoe, Richard George
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Jacob, A. E.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Gee, Captain R.
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lamb, J. Q.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Cadogan. Major Hon. Edward
Goff, Sir Park
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)


Campbell, E. T.
Grace, John
Loder, J. de V.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Looker, Herbert William


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Lougher, L.


Chapman, Sir S.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Mac Andrew. Major Charles Glen


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir f. (Dulwich)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Macintyre, Ian


Cope, Major William
Hammersiey, S. S.
McLean, Major A.


Couper, J. B.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
MacMillan, Captain H.




McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Herelord)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Malone, Major P. B.
Ropner, Major L.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Huggins-Brise, Major E. A.
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Margesson, Captain D.
Rye, F. G.
Templeton, W. P.


Meller, R. J.
Salmon, Major I.
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Merriman, F. B.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dswerth, Putney)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K, P.


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Sandon, Lord
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Moreing, Captain A. H.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Murchison, C. K.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Wells, S. R.


Nelson, Sir Frank
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Neville, R. J.
Shepperson, E. W.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Skelton, A. N.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Nuttall, Ellis
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Smith Carington, Neville W.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Smithers, Waldron
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wood, E.(Chestr, Stalyb'dge A Hyde)


Pilcher, G.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden.E.)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Stanley, Lord (Fytde)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Radford, E. A.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)



Raine, W.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ramsden, E.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Major Hennessy and Captain


Rentoul, G. S.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
 Bowyer.


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sury, Ct'ts'y)

Original Question again proposed.

Mr. BLUNDELL: In view of what the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) has said as to his willingness to co-operate with us and others who speak for the approved societies in finding a settlement that may be acceptable to the societies and to the Minister, as I understood him to say, and in view of the criticisms the Minister made on the point concerning women's societies—which I must confess I had overlooked, and which I must admit to be a solid criticism—although I cannot agree that all of his criticisms were equally sound, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment standing in my name.

HON. MEMBERS: No.

Mr. HARNEY: Am I in order in saying that I object to this withdrawal?

The CHAIRMAN: : It is not necessary. Objection has already been taken.

4.0 A.M.

Mr. HARNEY: I assume that such observations as I would have liked to have made upon the Amendment are now open to me. Now, I for one would, of course, have been very glad if the result of this Debate had been that the approved societies were saved the whole £2, 800, 000. In the absence of that, I should have liked to have seen them saved part of the sum. I think it is necessary before we can form a clear judgment as to whether the whole amount, or part of the amount, should be abstracted, to know the principle on which any amount at all should be abstracted. Now, there cannot be any ques-
tion about this. The Clause of the Bill provides that £2, 800, 000 a year is to be taken from somebody. What is it we are really debating about to-night? During the four years I have been in Parliament I never had experience of an all-night sitting until this one. It is not really for the love of the game I am here.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member may be approaching the question of ordinary and additional benefits, but it seems that his course is parabolic.

Mr. HARNEY: I think, Mr. Hope, I was quite in order in laying the foundation of the thought that the reason for this Debate is that we are discussing a subject of the very greatest gravity. I hope I will be able to deal with it in detail, but the most important feature is that this Bill which is brought forward under the name of an Economy Bill, takes £2, 800, 000 from somebody. Who is that somebody? Is it the gentlemen of accumulated riches, is it the great bodies of rich insurance societies from which that £2, 800, 000 a year is to he taken? It is to be taken from a corporate entity that has been formed to dole out health benefits to the very poorest classes of the community. Is it any wonder that we all should have got into a state of exhilaration.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. and learned Member is indulging in hyperbole. He had better keep to the Amendment.

Mr. HARNEY: Since apparently neither my Friends—[Interruption].

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN rose in Gs place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 200; Noes, 114.

Division No. 113.]
AYES.
[4.5 [...].m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Neville, R. J.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Gaff, Sir Park
Nuttail, Ellis


Aibery, Irving James
Grace, John
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Grattan- Doyle, Sir N.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Grotrian, H. Brent
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Plichor, G.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Pownail, Lieut. Colonel Assheton


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Radford, E. A.


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Raine, W.


Atkinson, C.
Hammersley, S. S.
Ramsden, E.


Balniel, Lord
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rentoul, G. S.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Hartington, Marquess of
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, ChWy)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Haslam, Henry C.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Blundell, F. N.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Ropner, Major L.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Rye, F. G.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Salmon, Major I.


Brass, Captain W.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Briscoe, Richard George
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hills, Major John Waller
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sandon, Lord


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Shepperson, E. W.


Campbell, E. T.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Skelton, A. N.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Huntingfield, Lord
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine.C.)


Chamberlain, Rt Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Chapman, Sir S.
Jacob, A. E.
Smithers, Waldron


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cobb. Sir Cyril
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Klnioch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Cope, Major William
Lamb, J. Q.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Couper, J. B.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George n.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Courtaurd, Major J. S.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Loder, J. de V.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Looker, Herbert William
Sugden. Sir Wlifrid


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Galnsbro)
Lougher, L.
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Templeton, W. P.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Kernel Hempst'd)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George clement


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Macintyre, Ian
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovli)
McLean, Major A.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
MacMillan, Captain H.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Dawson, Sir Philip
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Makins, Brigadler-Generel E.
Wells, S. R.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Malone, Major p. B.
Wheter, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Mannlngham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Margesson, Captain D.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Meller, R. J.
Wilson. R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Fanshawe, Commander G. D, 
Merriman, F. B.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Fermoy, Lord
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Fielden, E. B.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Moore, Lieut.-colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Wood, Sir Kingstey (Woolwich, W.).


Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Moreing, Captain A. H.



Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gee, Captain R.
Murchison, C. K.
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Lord


Gibbs. Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Nelson, Sir Frank
 Stanley.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Attlee, Clement Richard
Batey, Joseph


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Beckett, John (Gateshead)


Ammon, Charles George
Barr, J.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.


Briant, Frank
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Broad, F. A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sitch, Charles H.


Bromfield, William
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bromley, J, 
Jenkins, W. {Glamorgan, Heath)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Buchanan, G, 
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Clowes, S.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Stamford, T. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stephen, Campbell


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Compton, Joseph
Kelly, W. T.
Sullivan, Joseph


Cove, W. G.
Kennedy, T.
Taylor, R. A.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Kirkwood, D.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Dalton, Hugh
Lansbury, George
Thurtle, E.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lee, F.
Townend, A. E.


Day, Colonel Harry
Lindley, F. W.
Varley, Frank B.


Dennison, R.
Livingstone, A. M.
Viant, S. P.


Duncan, C.
Lunn, William
Wellhead, Richard C.


Dunnico, H.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)
Mackinder, W.
Warne, G. H.


Gibbins, Joseph
MacLaren Andrew
Watson, w. M. (Dunfermilne)


Gillett, George M.
Maxton, James
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gosling, Harry
Montague, Frederick
Westwood, J.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morris, R. H.
Whiteley, W.


Griffiths, T, (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Groves, T.
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, David (Swansea. East)


Grundy, T. W.
Palin, John Henry
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Paling, W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hardle, George D.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe


Harney, E. A.
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Harris, Percy A.
Purcell, A. A.
Windson Walter


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Richardson, R. (Houghton le-Spring)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hayday, Arthur
Saklatvala, Shapurjl



Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. A.


Hirst, G. H.
Short, Alfred (Wednesday)
 Barnes.


Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word twenty-six, ' in page 1, line 13, stand part of the Clause, "put accordingly, and agreed to.

Miss WILKINSON: I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, to leave out the word "twenty-six ", and to insert instead thereof the word "twenty-eight."
I regret in moving this Amendment that I am not able to speak with the high spirits of the previous speaker. I wish to point out—

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I have not gathered which of the two Amendments the hon. Member is moving, and whether the first is cut of order.

Mr. HOPE: It is not out of order, but it may put the lion. Baronet's Amendment out of order.

Miss WILKINSON: I am moving, in Clause 1, page 1, line 13. In doing that I do not want it to be taken that we on this side approve of the idea that this Bill should come into operation in 1928, but we hold that it would be better than 1926. When this Economy Bill was first thrown at the head of a startled country, it created a general feeling of dismay. There was a feeling in the country that the Bill was being rushed, and subsequently the Government have done
nothing to allay that feeling. Sir Thomas Neale has recently said:
The Government is rushing the Bill through before Easter so that people shall not have time to understand it and protest. They are rushing it through to prevent people understanding how they are being robbed.
That is not the speech of a mediocre orator in Hyde Park, but the considered opinion of one of the greatest insurance authorities of to-day. I take it that the Bill is based on the Report of the National Health Insurance Commission, yet the Commission itself points out that
We could have wished that more evidence could have been forthcoming from insured persons. While we took such steps as were practicable we recognise the difficulty of securing evidence which is truly representative.
When you come back to the Commission's report itself you find that it states that it has not had sufficient evidence before it to come to its conclusion; therefore I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he himself is really comfortable about this Bill, whether he does not think that, instead of rushing it through in the next week or two, especially in rushing it through at this early hour of the morning, he ought not to get into touch with the approved societies, and still more with the membership of the approved societies, and find out what they think of
it? The Government ought to consider whether agreement cannot be reached, and in suggesting this two years' postponement it is to give the right hon. Gentleman really the very barest minimum of time to get into touch with the members of the societies. May I quote the Minister of Health's own statement of yesterday afternoon? In answer to the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), he said in any case the scheme would have to be reviewed. I think there are a good many people who will agree that, on the basis of the experience of the last few years, the scheme will have to be reviewed. But in what way? Surely not in this very hurried, hastily patched-together scheme, in an attempt to secure a few hundred thousands for a desperate Chancellor of the Exchequer who gave last year £10, 000, 000 back to the Super-tax payer. On page 292 of the Report of the National Health Commission it is stated:
The first point to which we wish to draw attention, the lack of co-ordination in our social services, is one which has been the subject of comment in many quarters. We desire in this place to point out the inconvenience and by implication the waste which it occasions. In a sense this question may not be within our terms of reference, but it is impossible to survey the field of Health Insurance without realising that the problems of health insurance are closely interwoven with wider questions from which in fact they cannot be divorced … On the possibility of co-ordination, on the alternative methods and machinery of operating a co-ordinated scheme we have received no evidence or only incidental evidence, and on all such matters we express no opinion. But we desire to emphasise that there is here a problem which calls for urgent consideration. It may be that in a co-ordinated scheme different machinery would still be necessary for the administration of different sections of the work undertaken, but prima facie it appears reasonable to assume that an economy of expenditure and of effort would be effected by viewing the problem of social insurance as a whole and not sectionally.
I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he thinks that this Bill being rushed through as it is before Easter, before any time has been taken to consult the approved societies, when the country as a whole has not had time to discuss it, when there is a general feeling of bewilderment all through the country, whether he would not be well advised to take two years extra in order to come to some understanding. The greater part
of the saving of this scheme will not operate till 1931. That gives the right hon. Gentleman time to consider the whole matter fully, and to go into it in order to produce a scheme which will have a reasonable basis. I was accused—a dreadful accusation to be hurled against any Member on this side of the House—that in the speech which I made in introducing the Factories Bill I had made a sound Conservative speech. I have not yet recovered from the effect of that accusation. I want to suggest to the present Minister of Health that he might return to the sound doctrines of his own party in this most contentious Bill. I do not think he has any conception of the feeling that is aroused in the country by this Bill. He would do very much better by taking the two years as suggested by the Amendment in order to find out what the electorate is really thinking about. I feel the Government may have a shock in a forthcoming by-election.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think the reference to by-elections is in Order.

Miss WILKINSON: By-elections will come in the two years that are suggested by my Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: If by-elections come, the hon. Lady does not suggest that by-elections should affect the judgment of Members of this House?

Miss WILKINSON: I wish to point out that we want consultation. We want time to have consultation. I believe that it will not be a question of a by-election, but of a General Election.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Lady must confine herself to the Amendment.

Miss WILKINSON: It is necessary to bring home to the Minister of Health the vital necessity of these two years. He will find it extremely difficulty to justify in the country this Bill if he refuses the short period mentioned in the Amendment. The Bill affects about 15, 000, 000 people, and these 15, 000, 000 people have the right to be consulted before their benefits are taken in this way, and I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how he can justify rushing this Bill at the fag end of a very severe Session. I feel justified in asking him to go further into the matter, and to take two years to consider the whole question, to consult the
approved societies, the membership of the approved societies, and to produce a Bill which will really command assent.

Sir K. WOOD: I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment. [An HON. M EMBER: Why not'? "]. We discussed the question of the postponement of the Cause, and it has been rejected by the Committee. We also discussed the Amendment that the Bill should be left open until after the next General Election. That was also rejected by the Committee. The proposal now is that the Bill should be postponed for two years, but as the purpose of the Bill is to effect a saving immediately it would not be practicable from that point of view to postpone it for two years.

Mr. THOMAS: We certainly are en-tilled to complain, as I now complain, against the inadequate reply to the reasons given in favour of the Amendment by my hon. Friend the Member for best Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson). It is quite true that the hilarity of a number of hon. Members opposite prevented them from appreciating the eloquence of the hon. Member, but those of us who listened to her speech feel justified in saying that the Minister himself ought to have replied. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Prime Minister will reply! "] The interrupter says the Prime Minister will reply and I agree that the importance of this Bill would even warrant the intervention of the Prime Minister. I therefore associate m3 self with the remarks of the hon. Member who interrupted. I believe the Prime Minister ought to be here. Unfortunately, he is not, and I dare say that if I move to report Progress even on the ground that he is not here it would be difficult to carry the Motion, though if he is in bed I do not want to get, him out of it. I will therefore make the best of the material that is here. If the Minister himself feels that he is so tired and jaded and worried that he cannot reply and puts up his Under-Secretary we are entitled at least to a better reply. I ask the Committee to consider seriously the difference between the present Amendment and the two previous ones. The first Amendment asked for a postponement of this Clause until after the Easter recess. The reason given by the
Government against the acceptance of that Amendment was that so far as Easter was concerned there was a. Report stage and the Third Reading to be carried through. The next Amendment was to postpone the operation of the Clause until after a General Election. The Government reply to that is: "No, we are afraid to consult the electors. We are afraid of giving the people an opportunity. We know perfectly well that if we delay it until after a General Election it will never be introduced."I think my right hon. Friend will admit that is the short case against the Amendment. You have refused the postponement over Easter or to defer it until after a General Election. Surely you have no right to consider £5, 600, 000 against the interests of 15, 000, 000 people. Why should the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is used to having so many millions about him, worry about £5, 000, 000?
I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give a better reply than he has given. Is it not conceivable that if you accept this Amendment we may come to a bargain? We may, for instance, agree that you ought to have a General Election and then we would have an opportunity within two years to test this question. For these reasons I feel that it if; not only a good Amendment, but I think the Committee will agree that a grave injustice is being done if it is not accepted. It is not treating the Opposition properly and it is not fair to them to keep us here all night because someone has to look after these insured people. If, in our anxiety to do what you ought to be doing and in our anxiety to protect these people, we are kept here until this time of the morning, we are entitled to some response from the Government to the request made. If a more reasoned reply is not forthcoming, much as we regret trotting about the Lobbies, I should have no hesitation in advising my hon. Friends to go into the Lobbies.

Mr. BECKETT: It is not good enough to tell us that, because the more sweeping Amendments to the Bill have been rejected, this small and modest request should also be turned down. It is like saying that because you cannot do everything you must not do anything. I suggest that, after all, that has been
said from both sides of the House in this Debate that the proposal to defer the Bill for two years does involve a very serious question of principle which ought to be considered. We have a very large number of comparatively poor people who have managed by the election of adequate persons to manage their affairs and by the accumulation of small subscriptions per head to get a substantial sum. We are always told by the hon. Gentleman opposite that if there is one thing we ought to be careful not to interfere with by legislation it is the habits of thrift, initiative and enterprise in that capital which is so much needed for the conduct of the country. I suggest that in this Amendment we give hon. Members on the other side and the people in the country an opportunity of seeing how serious it is to upset the principle that, when working people by their own initiative and ability in administrative affairs, by their belief in the word of the British Government and employers, have made a success of their undertakings, that although you regard every other form of capital as sacred, working-class capital accumulated in small sums is not sacred. You are certainly, as the right hon. Gentleman who leads the Opposition said, setting a precedent which will be followed to the disadvantage of other interests besides working-class interests in the future. In this Amendment we are not for the moment trying to resist you on the main principle. We are realising that we are a small and insignificant opposition against your reserves, and because of that we are modifying our request. Although we have not been beaten in the battle of wits, we have been beaten in the battle of feet continually during this late sitting, and, knowing that we cannot get the larger things for which we have been pleading, we are now modifying our request to say to you: "Do give your

selves an opportunity of getting this matter carefully considered."

If the party on these benches considered its best interest in the country, without considering anything else but pure partisan advantage, we would not press this Amendment, because it will be, more than any other of the sins you have committed, the one which the people of this country will hold against you. We are not merely considering opportunities for discrediting Gentlemen opposite. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is so busy devising schemes to discredit your party that there is no need for us to do it. We are pleading for this against our own party interest because we believe you are doing tremendous injustice to the enterprise of private and individual people.

Hon. Gentlemen opposite have said nobody will feel any bad effects until 1931. Then why not wait until 1928 to bring it in? If it is true in one direction, it is true in the other. The saving, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) said—is so small—less than gentlemen on the other side throw away with hardly a moment's debate when we are discussing the Estimates of the fighting services. I most respectfully suggest to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that he has not given us anything at all. I remember on another Bill of which he had charge, although he was just as adamant all night long, as dawn began to creep into the skies he did make one or two concessions, and I suggest, if the sun is bringing kindness into his heart, that this would be a most suitable Amendment for him to reward us with for our night's labours.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN rose in. his place., and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put: "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 196; Noes, 114.

Division No. 114.]
AYES.
[4.45 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Balniel, Lord
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.


Albery, Irving James
Barnston. major Sir Harry
Brown. Brig Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Blades, Sir George Rowland
Burgoyne, Lieut. Colonel Sir Alan


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Biundell, F. N
Burton, Colonel H. W.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, w. Derby)
Boothby, R. J. G.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward


Appiln, Colonel R. V. K.
Brass, captain W.
Campbell, E. T.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Brassey, Sir Leonard
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth. S.)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Briscoe, Richard George
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A (Birm., W.)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St.Marylebone)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Chapman, Sir S.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Ropner, Major L.


Cope, Major William
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Couper, J. B.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Rye, F. G.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hudson, R S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Salmon, Major I.


Courthope, Lieut. Col. Sir George L.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Huntingfield, Lord
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Patney)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey. Gainsbro)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Jacob, A. E.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Kindersley, Major Guy M, 
Sandon, Lord


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovli)
Lamb, J. Q.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Shepperson, E. w.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Skelton, A. N.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Loder, J. de V.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Looker, Herbert William
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)


Elliot, Captain Walter E
Lougher, L.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Smithers, Waldron


Everard, W. Lindsay
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harm n
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)


Fermoy, Lord
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Fielden, E. B.
Macintyre, I.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Frasar, Captain Ian
McLean, Major A.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Framantic, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Stott, Lieut. Colonel W. H.


Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Malone, Major P. B.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Gee, Captain R.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Sugden, Sir Wilfred


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Margesson, Captain D.
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Meller, R. J.
Templeton, W. P.


Glyn. Major R. G. C.
Merriman, F. B.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton).


Goff, Sir Park
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Grace, John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Gratean-Doyle, Sir N.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Ward, Lt.-Col.A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Grotrian, H. Brent
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J, T. C.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Wells, S. R.


Hall, Lieut. Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Murchison, C. K., 
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hammersley, S. S.
Neville, R. J
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Hartington, Marquess of
Nuttall, Ellis
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
O'Connor, T. J, (Bedford, Luton)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Haslam, Henry C
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootie)
Pilcher, G.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton



Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Radford, E. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Raine, w.
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Ramsden, E.
 Bowyer.


Hills, Major John Waller
Rentoul, G. S.



NOES


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Ammon, Charles George
Day, Colonel Harry
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Dennison, R.
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Duncan, C.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)


Barnes, A.
Dunnico, H.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Barr, J.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Batey, Joseph
Gibbins, Joseph
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Gillett, George M.
Kelly, W. T.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gosling, Harry
Kennedy, T.


Briant, Frank
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Kirkwood, D.


Broad. F. A.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lansbury, George


Bromfield, William
Groves, T.
Lawson, John James


Bromley, J
Grundy, T. W.
Lee, F.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lindley, F. W.


Buchanan, G.
Hardle, George D.
Livingstone, A. M.


Clowes, S.
Harris, Percy A.
Lunn, William


Cluse, W. S.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J, R.(Aberavon)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Hayday, Arthur
Mackinder, W.


Compton, Joseph
Hayes, John Henry
MacLaren. Andrew


Connolly, M, 
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Maxton, James


Cove, W. G.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Montague, Frederick


Crawfurd. H. E.
Hirst, G. H.
Morris, R. H.


Dalton, Hugh
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham. N.).




Oliver, George Harold
Smith, Rennle (Penistone)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Palin, John Henry
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Watts-Morgan, Lt.Col. D. (Rhondda)


Paling, W.
Stamford. T. W.
Westwood, J.


Pethick- Lawrence, F. W.
Stephen, Campbell
Whiteley, W.


Potts, John S.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Wilkinson. Ellen C.


Purcell, A. A.
Sullivan, Joseph
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Taylor, R. A.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Sakiatvala, Shapurji
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Thurtle, E.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Tinker, John Joseph
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Short, Alfred (Wednesnury)
Townend, A. E.
Windsor, Walter


Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Varley, Frank B.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Sitch, Charles H.
Viant, S. P.



Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Wallhead, Richard C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.




Warne.

Question put accordingly, That the word 'twenty-six' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 196; Noes, 115.

Division No. 115.]
AYES.
[4.55 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Meller, R. J.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Gee, Captain R.
Merriman, F. B.


Albery, Irving James
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Glyn, Major H. G. C.
Moore, Lieut. -Colonel T. C. R.


Allen, J.Sandeman (L'pool, W.Derby)
Goff, Sir Park
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Grace, John
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Morcing, Captain A. H.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Astor, Maj. Hn.John J. (Kent, Dover)
Grotrian, H. Brent
Murchison, C. K.


Balniel, Lord
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Neville, R. J.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Nuttall, Ellis


Blundell, F. N.
Hammersley, S. S.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Booth by, R. J. G.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hartington, Marquess of
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Brass, Captain W.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Brassey. Sir Leonard
Haslam. Henry C.
Pilcher, G.


Briscoe, Richard George
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Radford, E. A.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Raine, W.


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.c.(Berks, Newb'y)
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Ramsden, E.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Rentoul, G. S.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hennessy, Major J. R G.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hills, Major John Waller
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Campbell, E. T.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Ropner, Major L.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Rye, F. G.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Salmon, Major I.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Sandeiran, A. Stewart


Cope, Major William
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Couper, J. B.
Huntingfield, Lord
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Cuurtauld, Major J. S, 
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sandon. Lord


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Jacob, A. E.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwldt)
Kidd, J. (Llnlithgow)
Shaw. R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Kinclersley, Major G. M.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Curzon, Captain Viscount
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Shepperson, E. W.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Skelton, A. N.


Davidson, J.(Hertt'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Lamb, J. Q.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Loder, J. de V.
Smithers, Waldron


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Looker, Herbert William
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lougher, L.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Maclntyre, Ian
Streatfeild, Captain S. H.


Fanshawe, Commander Q. D.
McLean, Major A.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Fermoy, Lord
Macmillan, Captain H.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Fielden, E. B.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Fraser, Captain Ian
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Malone, Major P. B.
Templeton, W. P.


Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Thorn, Lt.-Col. I. G. (Dumbarton)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Margesson, Captain D.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Wallace, Captain D. E.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)



Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Wells, Sir Fredric
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain


Wells, S. R.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
 Bowyer.


Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Wood, E.(Chest'r. Staiyb'dge & Hyde)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Harney, E. A.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Harris, Percy A.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Ammon, Charles George
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hayday, Arthur
Short, Alfreo (Wednesday)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayes, John Henry
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Banes, A.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sitch, Charles H.


Bare, J.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Briant, Frank
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Stamford, T. W.


Brand, F. A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Stephen, Campbell


Bromfield, William
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Bromley, J.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sullivan, Joseph


Brown, James (Ayr and Butt)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Taylor, R. A.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Clowes, S.
Jones, J. J. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Thurtle, E.


Cluse, W. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kennedy, T.
Townend, A. E.


Compton, Joseph
Kirk wood. D.
Varley, Frank B.


Connolly, M, 
Lansbury, George
Viant, S. P.


Cove, W. G.
Lawson, John James.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lee, F.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dalton, Hugh
Lindley, F. W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Livingstone, A. M.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondde)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Westwood, J.


Day, Colonel Harry
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Whiteley, W.


Dennison, R.
Mackinder, W.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Duncan, C.
MacLaren, Andrew
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Dunnico, H.
Maxton, James
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Montague, Frederick
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gibbins, Joseph
Morris, R. H.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Gillett, George M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Gosling, Harry
Oliver, George Harold
Windsor, Walter


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Palin, John Henry
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Paling, W.



Groves, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.-


Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Purcell, A. A.
Warne.


Hardle, George O.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Mr. SKELTON: I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, after the word "effect, "to insert the words
and until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight, shall have effect.
I need not assure the Committee that the Amendment I now move is not one which needs elaborate examination of figures or anything of that sort. It approaches the question of Clause 1 of the Economy Bill from another angle, and that angle is this: That the restriction of the State contribution should be regarded as a temporary expedient in time of financial difficulty and should not be regarded as a permanent policy of the State with regard to the friendly societies. We on this side of the Committee are agreed, and temporary financial necessities of the State make it absolutely necessary to support the provisions of the Economy Bill with regard to the insurance societies,
so far as this financial year is concerned, and, no doubt, the one after. I think it would be absurd to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to receive this economy for one year only. I do not think it is absurd to ask him at the end of two years to reconsider the question of whether the financial situation has so much improved as will enable us once again to return to the full amount of the State contribution.
The date, therefore, I would fix for the return to the old standard would be 31st March, 1928. It is clear from what has been said that at the moment, putting it at its lowest, that the greatest dubiety exists as to what will be the actual effect of the diminution in the State contribution. My own view is that we cannot go far wrong if we accept the figures of the Government actuary. The risk that societies embracing 10 per cent. of the insured should suffer deficiency is
a very real one; the risk that societies able to give additional benefits might no longer be able to do so is also a real one. A question which appeals most to me, however, is that it may be, except at a long distance ahead, impossible to carry out improvements in the medical service. It is clear that the Royal Commission regard the building up of specialist medical treatment as a most important matter for the welfare of the people of this country. Obviously it must be that a health insurance scheme, which gives nothing but general practitioner benefit to the insured people, is a health scheme which has not reached full maturity. I beg, therefore, to suggest to the Government and the Committee that it is an advisable and practicable way to deal with the situation to take account of the temporary difficulties of the Government for the next few years and at the end of that period to review the situation and, if possible, to return to the full scale.
I am not one of those, and I do not think there are many on this side of the House who have used the words "breach of pledge."My own view is that in matters of domestic legislation Parliament cannot make or break pledges because it is all powerful. If hon. Members think the matter out they will find that is a proper statement. But whether it is a broken or unbroken pledge that is not really the question. The real question is, Are we running the risk of postponing an improvement in the health service of this country? If we are running any risk, let us minimise it. Let us reduce the period of restricted contributions to the lowest possible extent. Finally, with regard to the course I propose to adopt. I shall be very happy if the Government are able to accept this Amendment and assure the country that their present restricted policy is a temporary one. I should be happy, but less happy, if some compromise were arranged with the friendly societies, but if the Government find it impossible to accept my Amendment I do not propose to divide the Committee upon it. But as far as I am concerned, I propose to give my vote against and not in favour of Clause of the Bill. I do not think it is as it should be that the Unionist party should permanently abandon the higher scale of contribution without making at least
effort when times improve of getting back to it and holding out a hope to the country that that return may he possible within a few years.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend in moving his Amendment stated that he himself was convinced that the proposals of the Bill were necessary for purposes of economy during the present year, but he said he did not desire to see the proposals made permanent. I am sure that all of us hope that the reasons which have made economy so necessary to the nation at present may not be permanent, and that, whenever more prosperous times come, the State will undoubtedly have at its disposal resources which it can use in further social service. But what guarantee has my hon. Friend that in the particular year he chooses the necessity for economy will pass away? He has given no reason. According to his Amendment, in 1928 the contribution of the State automatically goes back to 2/9ths, and if, therefore, the increased contribution was not justified by the financial conditions of the State at that time it would he necessary to introduce amending legislation. If, on the other hand, it is found that in 1928 or any other year conditions are such that it is possible for the State to increase its contribution, and if it is felt that is the best way in which the resources of the State can be utilised then you can alter the provisions of this Bill, and therefore nothing is gained by the proposal of my hon. Friend. I am afraid in spite of the fact that I think two or three times in the course of our discussion it has been stated that the proposals of the Royal Commission in regard to extended medical benefit are not in any way affected by the proposals of the Bill, he still repeats the old story that they will be postponed by the Bill. After all, if he will read the Report he will find it is not the Commission's view that that particular benefit should be financed out of the margin of contribution.

Mr. THOMAS: We have just heard a very characteristic reply from the right hon. Gentleman to his hon. Friend behind him. After nearly 10 hours' Debate, it is still emerging that, notwithstanding the repeated statements of the right hon. Gentleman, his friends behind him are not yet satisfied. They feel with many of us, in fact all of us,
on this side that it is not sufficient for the right hon. Gentleman continuously to get up and say: "These people are not affected."The hon. Gentleman made reference to the medical benefit. This is the Clause referred to by him in the Report, page 123:
Proposals for extending Medical Benefit. The first of the questions to which we now turn is that of the extension of the scope of medical benefit. In Chapter V we have indicated the nature of the evidence directed to this question, evidence which leaves in our mind no doubt that this extension should come first in any order of priority of proposals and that such an expansion should be made if or as soon as the necessary financial resources are.
I ask the Committee to put the only possible interpretation on that Clause. It is this, to my mind. We recognise, say the Commission, that there is nothing so necessary as an extension of medical benefit. Then they give reasons and give the direction in which this should take place. But they say, "While we believe this is urgent, while we would press it, we do recognise that there is a question of finance."They say, "Immediately the financial position can be met."The right hon. Gentleman has given no answer to the position given by his hon. Friend behind him, who asked, "What chance is there of the 10 per cent. of societies, with known deficits, giving effect to this Clause? "There has been no answer given to that.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the right hon. Gentleman has read part of a paragraph on page 123 of the Report, and is trying to make out from that paragraph that the Royal Commission recommended extension of medical benefit to come out of part of the margin, I direct attention to paragraph 262 on the next page of the Report:
We have indicated in Chapter IX a financial method by which a generous provision of expert out-patient services can be made available without entrenching on the margin in the present contribution disclosed in Chapter VII, which margin we propose, as will be seen in Chapter XI, should be applied in another important direction.

Mr. THOMAS: My right hon. Friend should read on—
We have indicated in Chapter IX a financial method by which a generous provision of expert out-patient services can be made available without entrenching on the margin in the present contribution disclosed in Chapter VII which margin we propose
(as will be seen in Chapter XI) should be applied in another important direction. This method of providing the necessary funds has, as we consider, the additional merit that it at the same time reduces that disparity of resources between the various Societies which has evoked adverse criticism in so many quarters. But whether the cost of an extended medical benefit is met in this or in some other way, such extension should, as we have said, receive first and immediate consideration. Without it, indeed, the limitations of medical benefit remain the most obvious weakness in the whole scheme of benefits under National Health Insurance.
That being the weakness of national health insurance, what chance is there for the 10 per cent. of societies. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment apparently has not been answered on the points of criticism he made. He intimated quite clearly that he did not propose to divide. We will save him any difficulty in that connection. We certainly will do our best to limit the evil effects we believe will follow the Government's proposals, and if the hon. Member is so apprehensive he will be able to square his action in moving the Amendment by the opportunity we will give him and not to run away.

Mr. SKELTON: I said I did not propose to divide the Committee on the Amendment, but I propose, as far as I am concerned, to vote against Clause 1. It is not a question of running away.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I do not know whether the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) is happy over the Bill.

Mr. HARNEY: We are all happy now.

Mr. BOOTHBY: However happy they may be on the Liberal Benches, I must say there is nothing in the reply of the right hon. Gentleman which tended to increase my happiness in any way. The reason why I attached my name to this Amendment is that I dislike the whole of this Clause 1 from first to last. I do not see in the least how you can gel away from it however much you may argue about figures and quote reports, and it is more or less an attack upon the approved societies. If you take the effect upon the rural workers of approved societies of Scotland, the Benefit Fund is going to suffer to the extent of over £20, 000 a year. That money has to go somewhere, and it is bound to affect sooner or later the beneficiaries or the members of the various societies. There
is no need to repeat the arguments that have been made over and over again, but the vital sickness, disablement, maternity and treatment benefits are all bound to be effected later on, and, what I think is still more serious, these societies which are in a deficit at the present time, by 1931 will be over the edge altogether, and the effect on their morale is bound to be very considerable.
That is why I view this Clause with great apprehension. It ought to be reconsidered very carefully before we finally commit ourselves to this policy. Some of the arguments that have been previously addressed to this House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer have only tended to increase one's apprehension, and when he mentioned the Pensions Act the other day my dismay was complete. The Pensions Act was introduced with a great flourish of trumpets, but they are laying themselves open to the charge of plundering. The health of the nation is a prime charge. A great deal has been said that we are a C3 nation. We want to prevent our becoming a C4 or C5 nation in the future, and anything that touches health insurance and approved societies ought to be very carefully watched before we commit ourselves. The only justification for this Measure is national economy, and that is the only real defence of this Clause that can be put forward. But I urge the Government to remember, particularly the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he is not going to make or mar his power as a Minister of Finance by a comparatively small economy of one or two million pounds in a Budget of £800, 000, 000. In the next two or three years we have the enormous amount of £3, 000, 000, 000 of 5 per cent. War Loan for which we can have the option of floating a Conversion Loan in 1929. Supposing the Chancellor of the Exchequer can issue a Conversion Loan which will make 1 per cent. reduction in interest on that loan alone, we shall save more than £20, 000, 000 in the annual revenue. It is a pity to make too much heavy weight in an expenditure which only involves a saving of one or two millions. Retrenchment merely left alone as such has never in the past, and, I hope, will not be in the future the policy of the Unionist party. Wise expenditure is
thrifty expenditure and is a very much better policy. I very much doubt whether this is the wisest policy of expenditure. The reason we move this Amendment is to make it clear that we do not regard it as a permanent feature of the national economy. We would like to see the matter raised again. We want to try to get an agreement which is satisfactory to all concerned.

Mr. HARRIS: I want to congratulate the hon. Member on the very shrewd speech he has made, which might well be listened to by the Minister of Health. Recently I congratulated the Minister on his ability in piloting Bills through the House of Commons, and I said so because he had the wisdom to make concessions. But we have been sitting for nearly three-quarters of the day, and he has not made the slightest concession. Here is an opportunity of making one and bringing about a certain amount of confidence among the people who are watching the passage of this Bill with the greatest anxiety. There are plenty of precedents to limit a proposal of this kind to two years. There is the Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Bill, the Rent Restriction Bill, and a great many other Bills passed for an emergency. All the Minister has to do is to come down to this House in two years' time and ask for a short Bill to renew its provisions. The impression must be given outside that economy is being used as an excuse to destroy the spirit of the Health Insurance Act, because hon. Members opposite must not forget they have a very bad reputation in regard to health insurance, though the Minister of Health may be an exception. We cannot forget that when the Health Insurance Bill was originally introduced in 1911 it met with the strongest opposition from the party to which hon. Members belong. We were told the whole Bill was a fraud, that there would not be any benefits, that there would not be any money in the Act to make it financially sound.
I remember very well in 1911 a certain by-election in the constituency which I now represent when the Bill was condemned at every street corner as a fraud, a delusion and a trick. It was condemned on every side. I remember my friend Mr. Masterman losing his seat because of the Insurance Bill. He even lost more
than one seat. After all these years Members opposite come along and tell us that the Act is a success, that it is financially sound and they want to raise fields with it to bolster up other schemes. If they believe in the principle of health insurance, the least they can do is to make this proposal temporary for two years. If they do not like to make concessions to Members on this side, the least they can do is to back up loyally those who keep their Government in office. The principle of the Bill was never mentioned two years ago. The Insurance Act we were told was to be extended in every way. The Government have no right at half-past five in the morning, with the light coming in through the windows, to make a Bill of this kind permanent. It is the let April and that is a very bad omen. I say to the Minister we are prepared to sit here to-morrow and Friday also if necessary.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I support the Amendment, and congratulate the hon. Members who moved it and seconded it upon the proposals they are making to effect a compromise between the Bill as it stands and the feeling they have, which is shared on this side of the Committee, that these proposals are taking away from the health resources of the nation. Although we on this side of the Committee are not convinced that the emergency is such that a single penny should be taken away, we are prepared to support this Amendment as something in the right direction. It will have this considerable effect, that, although it does mean a loss to the funds of the societies of something like £5 000, 000 or more, yet notwithstanding, if this Amendment be carried, that loss will be only of that amount and will not go on indefinitely. We have heard a great deal about various schemes which are going to be thwarted if this money is taken away, but let us remember for a moment what the actual recommendations of the Majority Report of the Royal Commission on Health Insurance is on this matter. What the Commission definitely propose is found on page 152. What they say is:
Finally, however, we came to the conclusion that the second place in our recommended extensions should be given to the prevision of allowances to the dependants of insured persons in receipt of sickness or disablement benefit, and that extended provision for maternity should be given the
third place, with the result that it cannot be included in the extensions which will become immediately practicable under the financial readjustments which we recommend in Chapters VII and IX of our report.
What does that actually mean? It means that they do recommend these dependants' benefits to be an immediate benefit which they wish to see secured. If we turn to page 142 we find exactly the benefit they contemplate with regard to this Bill. They say there are
two other possible plans either of which could be financed within the present contributions. These are (1) an addition of 3s. a week to the sickness benefit in respect of a wife and an addition of 6d. in respect of a child, one-half of these rates being provided during the payment of disablement benefit, (2) an addition to the sickness benefit in respect of either a wife or a child of 2s. a week with a proportionate addition of 1s. a week to disablement benefit.
We have here the definite proposal which the scheme of the Bill is taking away. If the proposals are not carried or the Amendment be put in its place we shall have in the future this dependants' benefit which a majority of the Royal Commission on Health Insurance recommends. What we are confronted with today is the alternative of saving this £2, 800, 000 to the Exchequer or this dependants' benefit which is recommended by the Royal Commission on Insurance. I feel certain it will be a very serious thing if the 14, 000, 000 or 15, 000, 000 people who are anticipating additional benefits and who have obtained in the case of sickness this 2s, a week for one of their dependants have their hopes frustrated in order to save this sum which the Chancellor will no doubt put to saving at some future date on the Income Tax.
I suggest that, if the Minister is not able to meet us by withdrawing this very objectionable Clause, he should meet his own followers by accepting this very practical arrangement. The Minister has said: "What difference does it make? "He says it is just the same thing whether you put this Amendment forward or not, because in two years' time, if the Amendment is carried, you will have to bring in a Bill if you want to continue the reduction to one-ninth, and if you do not carry the Amendment you can bring in a Bill in order to restore the two-ninths at that time. We all know it makes all the difference in the world whether the Minister has to come forward with an-
other Bill or if the Clause simply stands. But if it be true, as the Minister says, that it makes no difference, why should he not accept this Amendment?
The great objection I have to the whole of this legislation is that I regard it as a capital levy of the worst kind. There are two kinds of capital which are vital to the life and prosperity of this country. One form of capital is material wealth, and the other form, which is certainly not less important, is human wealth.

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): This does not seem to be relevant to the Amendment.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I think you will see that I am coming to the question which is before the Committee. What I was pointing out was, that human capital was of the greatest importance of all. The capital levy on material wealth was not to destroy or reduce that capital but merely to transfer its ownership, but this Bill and this Clause, if it is carried in its entirety, will do a great deal to destroy the human capital which is so essential to the life and prosperity of the country.
Persons who are above the poverty line and persons who have some little means —one of the things they think most about is how they are going to give to their children a standing in life, because they recognise that the human capital which they can give to their children is much more important than giving them a little money as time goes on. Therefore they spend on the health and education of their children everything they can afford. They give them a good doctor and a good dentist, and fresh air and holidays after they have been ill in order to recover their health, and they recognise that in so doing they are not merely benefiting their individual children, but they are benefiting the State. It is for that reason that the State has recognised that it has a share in this question of national insurance. National insurance was not invented merely as a means of giving doles to individuals.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I thought the hon. Member said he was going to show me that this had something to do with the Amendment.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The connection with the Amendment is direct. If this Amendment be carried, the amount of money that is taken away from the human capital of the nation is restricted to the £5, 000, 000 that would be lost in the two years. But if that Amendment be defeated, we are thrown back upon the Clause in the Bill—that is to take away £2, 300, 000 every year continually from the resources which are at present going to make the human capital of the nation. I do suggest that, just as the human capital of the nation consists of the health and life of its citizens, and seeing that well-to-do parents spend money on their children in that way, so we, as representing the people as a whole, are concerned to see that the full amount be secured in order to keep the health and life of the people in the best possible condition. If this Amendment be defeated we are going to reduce the margin which is available for supplying the additional health and life of the people in various ways. It is going to be detrimental to the human capital of the country, and therefore most serious and damaging to the prosperity of this nation.

Mr. J. JONES: Some of us do not profess to be experts in these matters. All we know is that sometimes we have to pay into these insurance societies under the promises given to us by people who ought to know better. When the National Health Insurance Acts were going through Parliament, all sorts of promises were made to us by those who are supposed to know all about it. The workmen were eventually compelled to pay, not because they liked it.. A large number of the organised workmen of this country did not agree with the Act in its original stages, and opposed it for all they were worth. As a consequence, it took a great deal of propaganda by some of the workers' leaders to get them to accept the principle of national health insurance. It went so far that in some places there were actually strikes, but eventually the opposition died down on the strength of the promises that were made. [An HON. MEMBER: "What has that got to do with the Amendment? "] It has got everything to do with it. We are discussing now the application of this Bill and the taking away from some of the
people of this country the funds that we were led to believe they were going to get.
What has been the argument of hon. Members opposite who are supporting the policy of the Government to-night? The argument has been that so far as they are concerned no pledges have been broken. The actual reality is that £2, 800, 000 are being taken away. How can you take £2, 800, 000 away from a fund and leave the fund as it was? I am not clever at figures, but I can understand that if you take £2, 800, 000 away from a common pool into which workmen, the employers, and the State have each contributed, you cannot do so year by year without eventually depleting the fund. [An HON. MEMBER: "Question !"] Figures cannot lie. Well, of course, that is the only thing you can say: "Question!"I am giving you the facts; I am sorry I cannot give you the sense to understand them. In so far as my hon. Friend over there is concerned, I will give him all the opportunities to reply that he likes. I will be prepared to meet him in his own constituency on this Bill. As soon as this Bill becomes known to the workers, no one of you will be able to swear you have a safe seat—not when you have to face the people who pay the bill. In every Bill that was passed during the War a limit was placed on the possibilities of exploitation against the people.
The Amendment is to limit the operation of this particular Measure for two years. What have hon. Members opposite been doing in connection with the Rent Restriction Act? I hey have been shouting for its immediate repeal all the time. What for? So as to allow private enterprise to have the opportunities of exploiting the people. This is to be a permanent Measure to take from the workmen's pocket £2, 800, 000 if the present Parliament is allowed to continue and unless a Parliament with more sense is put in in their place. This is one of the most contemptible Measures that has ever been introduced into any Parliament. You want to save money. Surely, you can find better means of saving money than by taking away from the workers money that has been promised them. Hon. Members opposite have said on public platforms what a splendid thing this national health insurance scheme was, and what accumulated funds would
result from good management, and what benefits would accrue from careful administration. Why, the workmen would be able to go to the Continent like some of their masters do. They could go and take a cure at Wiesbaden or at Homburg. I have heard propagandists of the Conservative party praising the National Health Insurance Act up hill and down dale. The Parliamentary Secretary has been one of them himself.
Instead of taking the money from the people who have got it, you are going to pinch it from the people who have not got it. [Laughter.] Oh, yes; it may be a joke to my hon. Friend, because his sense of humour is rather deficient. But I want you to understand this, that what you are taking from the workers now is not the immediate benefit, but the reward for their past efforts for immediate opportunities. These people have no right to come to this House of Commons and ask for these powers. We are asking for the support of hon. Members to this Amendment because it is a limitation of this Act to two years. In two years you will have taken from the workers, in round figures, £5, 000, 000, which you have no right to take. It will be taken from the pockets of the poor for the benefit of the rich. Surely, you ought to be satisfied with chat. Is the nation so poor that it has got to attack one of the best services for dealing with the needs of the common people? In the East End of London, where we have managed our friendly societies efficiently, we have been told that we are going to have certain extended benefits as the result of the valuation that has taken place in connection with our administration.
This Bill means that what hopes we had in consequence of the better administration of the Act have simply gone west. For the sake of a few paltry millions, not the cost of one battleship, this is to he done. You would sooner take from the workers this money rather than scrap some of your unnecessary extravagance at the other end of your administrative authority. I am very glad, from the personal and political point of view, that you are doing this. It will lose East Ham election for you. As soon as the workers get to know what this Act means—the workers, who are compelled to pay by law—they will
realise that you are committing an act of theft against the working men. We are going to fight this for all we are worth, and this Amendment which is only a compromise—and I am personally opposed to the whole thing—is to place a limit on the rascality of the people who are going to rob the poor.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN rose in his place, and claimed to move,  "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 193; Noes, 115.

Division No. 116.]
AYES.
[6.0 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Nuttall, Ellis


Albery, Irving James
Grotrian, H. Brent
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyfon)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Alexander, sir Win. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Allen, J. Sandaman (L'pool, W-Derby)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Hall, Capt. w. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Pilcher, G.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Hammersley, S. S.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Asshetan


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Radford, E. A.


Astor, Ma]. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Hartington, Marquess of
Raine, W.


Balniel, Lord
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Ramsden, E.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Haslam, Henry C.
Rentoul, G. S.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxford, Henley)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Blundell, F. N.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Ropner, Major L.


Brass, Captain W, 
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Rye, F. G


Briscoe, Richard George
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Salmon, Major I.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hills, Major John Waller
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Holbrook. Sir Arthur Richard
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel sir Alan
Holt, Captain H. P.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sandon, Lord


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Campbell, E. T.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R.. Sowerby)


Cayzer, MaJ. Sir Herbt. R.(Prismith.S)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sheffield. Sir Berkeley


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Huntingfield, Lord
Shepperson, E. w.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Skelton, A. N.


Chapman, Sir S.
Jacob, A. E.
Sianey, Major P. Kenyon


Cobb, Sir Cyril.
Kidd, J. (Linilthgow)
Smith. R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Kinde-sley, Major Guy M.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Copt, Major William
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Smithers, Waldron


Couper, J. B.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Somerville. A. A. (Windsor)


Courtauld, Major I. S.
Lamb, J. Q.
Stanley, Col. Hon. R. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Stanley, Hon. 0. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Locker-Lampson, Com, O. (Handsw'th)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(LindsBy, Gainsbro)
Loder, J. de V.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Looker, Herbert William
Streatfeild. Captain S. R.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lougher, L.
Strickland, sir Gerald


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempsfd)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Stuart, Hon. I. (Moray and Nairn)


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Davies, Dr. Vernon
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Davies, Maj. Geo.F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Templeton, W. P.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Macintyre, Ian
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Dawson, Sir Phillo
McLean, Major A.
Thomson, F. C. I Aberdeen, South)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Macmillan, Captain H.
Vaughan-Morgan. Col K. P.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Malone, Major P. B.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Everard, W. Lindsay
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Margesson, Captain D.
Wells, S. R.


Fermoy, Lord
Meller, R. J.
Wheler, Major sir Granville C. H


Fielden, E. B.
Merriman, F. B.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Monsell, Eyres. Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Gee, Captain R.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wood, S. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Wood, E. (Chesfr, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Murchison, C. K.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Goff, Sir Park
Nelson, Sir Frank



Grace, John
Neville, R. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.- 




Lord Stanley and Captain Bowyer.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Harris, Percy A.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Alexander, A V. (Sheffield. Hiltsbro')
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Ammon, Charles George
Hayday, Arthur
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sitch, Charles H.


Barnes, A.
Hirst, G. H.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Barr, J.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Batey, Joseph
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, Rennie (Penlstone)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Snowdan, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Stamford, T. W.


Briant, Frank
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stephen, Campbell


Broad, F. A.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Bremfield, William
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sullivan, Joseph


S'omley, J.
Jones. Morgan (Caerphilly)
Taylor, R. A.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Thurtle, E.


Clowes, S.
Kennedy, T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cluse, W. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Townend, A. E.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lansbury, George
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Compton, Joseph
Lawson, John James
Varley, Frank B.


Connolly, M.
Lee, F.
Viant, S. P.


Cove, W. G.
Lindley. F. W.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Crawfurd, K. E.
Livingstone, A. M.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dalton, Hugh
Lunn, William
Warne, G. H.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhougton)
Mackinder, W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhonddts)


Cay, Colonel Harry
MacLaren, Andrew
Westwood, J.


Dennison, R.
Maxton, James
Whiteley. W.


Duncan, C.
Montague, Frederick
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Dunnico, H.
Morris, B. H.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Gibbins, Joseph
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Gillett George M.
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gosling, Harry
Palin, John Henry
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Paling, W.
Windsor, Walter


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypoot)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Groves, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, G, H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Purcell, A. A.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Hardle, George D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
 Hayes.


Harney, E. A.
Saklatvala, Shapurji

Question put accordingly, That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 119; Noes, 189.

Division No. 117.]
AYES.
[6 8 a.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fire, West)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morris, R. H.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hilltbro')
Groves, T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Ammon, Charles George
Grundy, T. W.
Newman, Sir R H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Oliver, George Harold


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertlllery)
Hardle, George D.
Palin, John Henry


Barnes, A.
Harney, E. A.
Paling, W.


Barr, J.
Harris, Percy A.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wlgan)


Batey, Joseph
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Pethick. Lawrence, F. W.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hayes, John Henry
Potts, John S.


Bowerman. Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Henderson, Rt, Hon. A. (Burnley)
Purcell, A. A.


Briant, Frank
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Radlord, E. A.


Broad. F. A.
Hirst, G. H.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Bromfield, William
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Bromley, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Brown, James (Ayr and But)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Buchanan, G.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
John. William (Rhonddi, West)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Clowes, S.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sitch, Charles H.


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Skelton, A. N.


Collins, sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Siesser, sir Henry H.


Compton. Joseph
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Connolly, M.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Rennle (Penistone)


Cove, W. G.
Kennedy, T, 
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Crawfurd, H. E.
Kirkwood, D.
Stamford, T. W.


Dalton, Hugh
Lansbury. George
Stephen, Campbell


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lawson, John James
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lee, F.
Sullivan, Joseph


Day, Colonel Harry
Lindley, F. W.
Taylor, R. A.


Dennison, R.
Livingstone, A. M.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Duncan, C.
Lunn, William
Thurtle, E.


Dunnico, H.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Tinker, John Joseph


Gibbins, Joseph
Mackinder, W.
Townend, A. E.


Gillett, George M.
MacLaren, Andrew
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Gosllng, Harry
Maxton, James
Varley, Frank B.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Montague, Frederick
Vant, S. P.


Wallhead, Richard C.
Whiteley, W.
Windsor, Walter


Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Warne G. H.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)



Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llaneily)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Westwood. J.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
 Hayes.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Grace, John
Nelson, Sir Frank


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Neville, R. J.


Albery, Irving James
Greene, W. P. Crawlord
Nuttall, Ellis


Alexander, E. E. (Leylon)
Grotrian, H. Brent
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Hall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. (Dulwich)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Pilcher, G.


Ashley, U.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Hammersley, S. S.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Raine, W.


Balniel, Lord
Hartington, Marquess of
Ramsden, E.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Rentoul, G. S.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Haslam, Henry C.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Boothby, R. J G.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxi'd, Henley)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Henderson, Lieut.-Col V. L. (Bootle)
Ropner, Major L.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Heneaye, Lieut.-Col. Arthur p.
Ruggies-Brise, Major E. A.


Brass, Captain W.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Rye, F. G.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Salmon, Major I.


Briscoe, Richard George
Herbert, Dennit (Hertford, Watford)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C R. I.
Hills, Major John Waller
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Broun-Lindsay, Mafor H.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Brown, Brig, Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Holt, Captain H. P.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Sandon, Lord


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Campbell, E. T.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel I. H.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks. W.R., Sowerby)


Cayzer. Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth.S.)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hume, Sir G. H.
Shepperson, E. W.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Huntingfield, Lord
Sianey, Major P. Kenyan


Chapman, Sir S.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Smith, R. w. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jacob, A. E.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. O.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Smithers, Waldron


Cope, Major William
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Couper, J. B.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stanley. Col. Hon. G. F (Will'sden. E.)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)


Courthope, Lieut-Col. Sir George L.
Lamb, J, O.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Crookshank, Col. C. dt W. (Berwick)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Cronkshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Streatfeild. Captain S. R.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Loder, J. de V.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Dalkeith, Earl of
Looker, Herbert William
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Lougher, L.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Luce, Maj. Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Templeton. W. p.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, YeovIl)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J, G. (Dumbarton)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Macintyre, I.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Eden, Captain Anthony
McLean, Major A, 
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Macmillan. Captain H.
Water-house, Captain Charles


Elliott, Captain Walter E.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wells, S. R.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Malone, Major P. B.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Fermoy, Lord
Margesson, Captain D.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Fielden, E. B.
Meller, R. J.
Wilson, n. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Merriman, F. B.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Ganzonl, Sir John
Monsell. Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M-
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Moore, Lieut. Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Statyb'qe & Hyde)


Gee, Captain R.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Gibbs, Col. Ht. Hon. George Abraham
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Moreing, Captain A. H.



Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
TELLERS FOR THE N0ES.-


Goff, Sir Park
Murchison, C. K.
Lord Stanley and Mr. F. C.




 Thomson.

Mr. THOMAS: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
We have now been debating this very important question for a long number of hours and I venture to say that there can
be no Member who has taken part in all-night sittings but would frankly admit there never was such a long sitting where the Debate was so relevant, so well conducted and free from temper on either side. But it is also significant, and I do
not think the Government or any Government can quite remember an occasion where for so long a period their strength was giving out and ours increasing. I am quite sure that many as have been the shocks felt by the Government Front Bench during the last few hours, nothing could have equalled the blow of the last Division. If that be the difficulty of the Government supporters, what is likely to be their position when the new shift books on? The all-night shift will be going off and the new team will arrive. Again we are thinking of the approved society members. What would be their fate if a new shift comes on knowing nothing about the case merely to act as a voting machine?
After all, this question does not finish with this Clause 1, and whatever our views on the question may be, we at least ought to keep in mind the millions of people involved. They will expect fair and adequate consideration, and it should be duly considered by the House of Commons when everybody was fit to discuss the position seriously. I submit we have reached a stage now where there can be no benefit for the Government to continue. When the House reassembles we come straight back to this particular Bill. What is the object of the Government in pressing any Clause in the Bill now? What do they gain by it? I will tell you my own view. They are afraid of the after effect of the interval on some of their own supporters. For this and many other reasons which I am sure ought to commend themselves to the hon. Gentlemen opposite, I beg to report Progress.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman thinks that the strength on this side is steadily diminishing, whereas that on his side is increasing. That being so; it can only be out of motives of kindheartedness towards us that he makes this Motion. We on this side are not at all grateful for his assistance. We feel quite able to carry on the struggle as long as may be necessary. The right hon. Gentleman need not flatter himself that he is going to bluff us. We are prepared to fight him, and we are prepared to beat him. I suggest that he should drop these tactics of obstruction.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: On a point of Order. Is the expression we
have just heard a Parliamentary expression?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It has constantly been ruled in this House that it is in order.

Sir GODFREY COLLINS: The right hon. Gentleman has very truly said that he can wear us down in numbers. No one will deny that for one single moment. We are astonished after having listened to him dealing with Amendments moved from his own side hour after hour since six o'clock that he hurls this across the Floor of the House at six o'clock in the morning. We are riot thinking of numbers, but I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman there is something more to be considered than even the members of the approved societies. There is the dignity of the House of Commons. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the Debate has been a very real Debate; from four o'clock to seven a very sharp Debate took place. Then from seven to eight and from 11 to one o'clock the main question was debated, moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas). From one o'clock to about five several Amendments were moved by hon. Members on the opposite side to which the right hon. Gentleman replied at great length. No one took exception to his doing so, yet at this hour of the morning he hurls this insult across the Floor. It is not what we have been led to expect from the right hon. Gentleman while he has been piloting other Measures through the House of Commons. I appeal to him that it would best serve not only the interests of the House of Commons, but. the interests of the approved societies outside if he accepted the Motion for the adjournment moved by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: On a point of Order. May I ask what is the meaning of the word "debate "in Standing Order 22, which does not allow a Member of the House who has moved to report Progress to do so a second time during the Debate?

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I have no notice of that.

Mr. HERBERT: May I ask whether this Motion is in order in view of the
fact that the right hon. Member for Derby has previously moved to report Progress?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: On a point of Order. The Motion has been put from the Chair by Captain FitzRoy.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think I can go back on what has already been done.

Mr. MacDONALD: I am rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has used, the word "obstruction, "but if he refers only to the present instance then my point goes. From a quarter to four until now we have been seriously discussing the Bill. The Clause before the Committee is very important, and one which ought to receive the very serious consideration at the hands of all Members of the House. When the Government made its first plans, they demanded four Clauses before we rose for Easter. Then they stated that they wanted two. In four and a-half hours' time the House is to meet again to discuss the adjournment of the House for Easter, and I suggest that it would be better if we left off now where we are and come back after Easter to give this Clause a final revision. We have finished all the Amendments. It is really not obstruction. We want to know where we stand.

Mr. PALIN: The right hon. Gentleman says that it is obstruction. I would like to remind horn that there are at least a score or two dozen Members on this side of the House who have been trying to take part in the Debate, and have not had an opportunity. They have got up for every Amendment, for this question is frightfully important to them, in view of the number of people whom they represent and who are implicated in the Bill. I think it comes badly from the right hon. Gentleman, under the circumstances to say we have been guilty of obstruction. It does not give a fair opportunity to Members like myself and a couple of dozen others who wanted to contribute to the Debate and have not had an opportunity. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has ever got up in the course of the Debate to move the Closure because there has been repetition or because, the contributions to the Debate have been irrelevant or trifling. The
least the right hon. Gentleman can do is to let the House go home and come back to the Debate refreshed.

Mr. BECKETT: I think the Motion to Report Progress was badly needed. The difficulties his own supporters found themselves in over this unfortunate Bill which the right hon. Gentleman probably through no fault of his own is sponsoring, has made him vent his ill-nature upon Members on this side of the Committee. I believe hon. Members on the other side of the Committee are in the same position as ourselves. We have had representations from trade unions, friendly societies, commercial enterprises, individuals in our constituencies, strongly urging that we should put certain facts forward in the House. Next to me I have the hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. Bromley) who, no one in this House will deny, has had great experience of workmen's societies under the Health Insurance Act. The hon. Member to my knowledge has been sitting in this House almost the whole time of this Debate and has not been able to voice the view which many thousands of these contributors have sent him here to give. I would suggest in face of these facts and the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has spent long periods in answering trifling matters raised by his own supporters and has spent hardly any time in answering the difficulties raised from these benches, that to rise at 6.30 in the morning and say, "We have superior numbers, and if you want a fight you can have it, "is contrary to the traditions in which English public business is carried on.
Victory does not by a long way always go to the big battalions. It is well known in British history that that is not so. I will venture to say to the right hon. Gentleman that if he cares to take that line and stamp the Prussian jack-boot at us, although I am a comparatively new Member of this House, I have seen sufficient to know that 20 determined men and women can give even your swollen majority a bad time indeed.

The CHAIRMAN: I have no "swollen majority ".

Mr. BECKETT: If I am not in order, Mr. Hope, in alluding to the swollen majority, I may perhaps be allowed to allude to their swollen heads. Although I will admit that sometimes Members on this
side of the House allow their indignation on some particular Measure to make them rather outspoken, I think hon. Members will give us credit that we have not resorted to any methods except strictly orderly and Parliamentary methods in carrying on the Debate. Personally I am glad of that. I should not like to see any minority in this House attempting any other methods, but if you get a majority so contemptuous of methods of British fair play, that at the least opposition they start blustering, it is asking for trouble.

Mr. HARDIE: As one who has been in attendance in this Debate from the start, and who represents that group which has lot en unable to get into the Debate, I wish to say that the methods of the Minister are the methods of the gag Minister. When we come to deal with large changes that are involved in a Bill like this it only shows that when the gag is used and when discussion is curbed, there is something the Government, with their big majority, are trying to get through by preventing the Opposition from bringing before the public that which they seek to hide. If there had been any sense of fair play on the part of the Minister of Health, he, instead of using that characteristic cynicism and making idiotic attempts at humour, would have been manly enough to allow a full and fair discussion of all the Amendments that were sincerely placed on the Paper. When a Minister brags about his numbers, it gives him the stamp of a coward.

The CHAIRMAN: That is not a Parliamentary expression.

Mr. HARDIE: Then I withdraw it, and put another word in its place; you can guess what it is. There are such things, we are told, as the great sports-manlike spirit of the English country gentleman and of the town gentleman of Birmingham, but there has been no spirit of sport shown in the methods adopted to-night. When you claim to be a great man and—

The CHAIRMAN: I did not claim to be a great man.

Mr. HARDIE: If the Minister of Health had been as great as you are, we should have had a greater sense of justice throughout this Debate.

The CHAIRMAN: I am not sure that it is in order to pass encomiums on the Chair.

Mr. HARDIE: I will not withdraw that, because the opportunity does not come very often when we want to and can pay the tribute. There is no other Member of the House, perhaps, that deserves more tributes and gets less. I cannot say that that is giving praise; it is only telling, the plain truth. If the same character had been manifested by the Minister of Health, we would not be pleading for justice. We would have got justice if he had been as fair-minded as the Gentleman who now presides. If there is a man in this House with a sense of justice, it is the present Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Although this is very pleasing, it does not seem to be relevant.

Mr. HARDIE: If the Minister had a sense of justice to let us run on, we might convert him to some of the things that he is preventing us getting to by the gag.

Mr. D. HERBERT: On a point of Order.

Mr. HARDIE: What do you want?

Mr. HERBERT: I want to ask whether the discussion generally of the question of the Closure has anything to do with the Motion at present before the Committee.

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member is referring to the Motion far the Closure that has been accepted by the House, it has been continually ruled that that it is not in order.

Mr. BECKETT: Arising out of that point of Order. Is there any limit to the number of points of Order a Member can raise?

The CHAIRMAN: No.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Seeing that we are discussing an Economy Bill, would it not be a good thing to have the lights turned out, as it is daylight?

Miss WILKINSON: And may I raise a point of ventilation, to ask if we could have some windows open?

Mr. HARDIE: It is a pity if we are going to get less light, because I think the other side want all the light they can
get. If a huge principle such as is involved in this Bill is going to be burked in this way, it simply means that the whole of the work that you are doing now will require to be done over again in a very short space of time. The great bodies that create public opinion on these questions are not going to be crushed by any decision by gag. All these societies are made up of working-class people, and we feel that because it is the working class there is going to be the gag on every effort that is made to deal with each point in detail. Here we have the principle that has always run through the Tory party—taking away from the poor and giving to the rich. What this Bill is aiming at is simply to in one way decrease taxation on the rich and take more from the poor. Because we have got a dud and stupid Chancellor of the Exchequer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]

The CHAIRMAN: That is not in order.

Mr. HARDIE: I take back those words, and say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the most inefficient and incompetent man to deal with national affairs when he has got to the state where it is necessary for him to rob the people of their savings. That is what it means—robbing people of their savings. If we are going to get this sense of justice running through this Debate from now on, you may be quite cure that you are going to get all the trouble that any party can have.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 190; Noes, 112.

Division No. 118.]
AYES.
[6.50 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Eden, Captain Anthony
Jacob, A. E.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Kidd. J. (Linlithgow)


Albery, Irving James
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Lamb, J. Q.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Fermoy, Lord
Lane Fox, Col Rt. Hon. George R.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Fielden, E. B.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)


Balniel, Lord
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Loder, J. de V.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Looker, Herbert William


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lougher, L.


Blades, sir George Rowland
Gault Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Blundell, F. N.
Gee, Captain R.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Herman


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Maclntyre, Ian


Brass, Captain W.
Goff, Sir Park
McLean, Major A.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Grace, John
Macmillan, Captain H.


Briscoe, Richard George
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Malone, Major P. B.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Manningham Buller, Sir Mervyn


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Meller, R. J.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Merriman, F. B.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hammersley, S. S.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Campbell, E. T.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R.(Prtsmth.S.)
Hartington, Marquess of
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)
Haslam, Henry C.
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Chapman, Sir S.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Morrison-Bell. Sir Arthur Clive


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Henderson. Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Murchison, C. K.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootie)
Nelson. Sir Frank


Cope, Major William
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Neville. R. J.


Couper, J. B.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D, L. (Exeter)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Nuttall, Ellis


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Hills, Major John Waller
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hogg, Rt. Hon.Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Crookshank.Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Plicher, G.


Davidson,J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Radford, E. A.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hudson, R.S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Raine, W.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Ranisden, E.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Huntingfield, Lord
Rentoul, G. S.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine.C.)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Roberts, Samuel (Hereford Hereford)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Water house, Captain Charles


Ropner, Major L.
Smithers, Waldron
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Roggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Somarville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wells, S. R.


Rye, F. G.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Salmon, Major J.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay}


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Sandeman, A, Stewart
Streatfelld, Captain S. R.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Sanders, sir Robert A.
Strickland, Sir Gerald
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Sanderson, Sir Frank
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Sandon, Lord
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Tasker, Major R. Inigo
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)
Templeton, W. P.



Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Shepperson, E. W.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Captain Margesson and Lord


Skelton, A. N.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Stanley.


Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Wallace, Captain D. E.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Harris, Percy A.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Alexander, A. V (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Ammon, Charles George
Hayday, Arthur
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Attlee, Clement Richard
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Short. Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson. T. (Glasgow)
Sinclair Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Barr, J.
Hirst, G. H.
Sitch, Charles H.


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Briant, Frank
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Broad, F. A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stamford, T. W.


Bromfield, William
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stephen, Campbell


Bromley, J.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sullivan, Joseph


Buchanan, G.
Jones, T, I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Taylor, R. A.


Clowes, S.
Kelly, W. T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, T.
Thurtle, E.


Compton, Joseph
Kirkwood, D.
Tinker, John Joseph


Connolly, M.
Lansbury. George
Tewnend, A. E.


Cove, W. G.
Lawson, John James
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lee, F.
Varley, Frank B.


Dalton, Hugh
Lindley, F. W.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Livingstone, A. M.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Day, Colonel Harry
Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Warne, G, H.


Dennison, R.
Mackinder, W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Duncan, C.
MacLaren, Andrew
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dunnico, H.
Maxton, J.
Westwood, J.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Montague, Frederick
Whiteley, W.


Gibbins, Joseph
Morris, R. H.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gillett, George M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Gos[...]lng, Harry
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Palin, John Henry
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Paling, W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Groves, T.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Windsor, Walter


Grundy, T. W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Potts, John S.



Hardie, George D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.-




Mr. Hayes and Mr. A. Barnes.

Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The committee divided: Ayes, 111; Noes, 190.

Division No. 119.]
AYES.
[7.0 a.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Clowes, S.
Gillett, George M.


Ammon, Charles George
Cluse, W. S.
Gosling, Harry


Attlee, Clement Richard
Compton, Joseph
Grenfell. D. H. (Glamorgan)


Barker, G. {Monmouth, Abertillery)
Connolly, M.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Barnes, A.
Cove, W. G.
Groves, T.


Barr J.
Crawfurd, H. E.
Grundy, T. W.


Batey, Joseph
Dalton, Hugh
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Beckett. John (Gateshead)
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Hardle, George D.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Harney, E. A.


Briant, Frank
Day, Colonel Harry
Harris, Percy A.


Broad, F. A.
Dennison, R
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Bromfield, William
Duncan, C.
Hayday, Arthur


Bromley, J.
Dunnico, H.
Henderson, Ht. Hon. A. (Burnley)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Buchanan, G.
Gibbins, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Thurtle, E.


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Oliver, George Harold
Tinker, John Joseph


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Palin, John Henry
Townend, A. E.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Paling, W.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Varley, Frank B.


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Viant, S. P.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Potts, John S.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Kelly, W. T.
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Warne, G. H.


Kennedy, T.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Kirkwood, D.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Lansbury, George
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Westwood, J.


Lawson, John James
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Whiteley, W.


Lee, F.
Sitch, Charles H.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Lindley, F. W.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Livingstone, A. M.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Lunn, William
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Stamford, T. W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Mackinder, W.
Stephen, Campbell
Windsor, Walter


MacLaren Andrew
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Maxton, James
Sullivan, Joseph



Montague, Frederick
Taylor, R. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Morris, R. H.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Major Cope and Captain Margesson.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Malone, Major P. B.


Ainsworth. Major Charles
Gee, Captain R.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Albery, Irving James
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Meller, R. J.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Merriman, F. B.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Goff, Sir Park
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Grace, John
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent,Dover)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Balniel, Lord
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Grotrian, H. Brent
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Murchison, C. K.


Blundell, F. N.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Nelson, Sir Frank


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Neville, R. J.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hammersley, S. S.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nuttall, Ellis


Brass, Captain W.
Hartington, Marquess of
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Percy. Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Briscoe, Richard George
Haslam, Henry C.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Henderson,Capt.R.R.(Oxford, Henley)
Pilcher, G.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Heneage. Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Radford, E. A.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Raine, W.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Ramsden, E.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Richardson Sir P. W.(Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Campbell, E. T.
Hills, Major John Waller
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt.R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Hogg, Rt.Hon.Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Ropner, Major L.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Holt, Captain H. P.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Rye, F. G.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Salmon, Major I.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Couper, J. B.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Huntingfield, Lord
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Jacob, A. E.
Sandon, Lord


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Kidd, J. (Linilthgow)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Davidson,J. (Hertf'd,Hemel Hempst'd)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sheffield, sir Berkeley


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Shepperson, E. W.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lamb, J. Q.
Skelton, A. N.


Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n&Kinc'dine.C.)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Loder, J. de V.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Looker, Herbert William
Smithers, Waldron


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lougher, L.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Stanley, Col. Hon.G. F (Will'sden, E.)


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Fermoy, Lord
Macintyre, Ian
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Fielden, E. B.
McLean, Major A.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid




Tasker, Major R. Inigo
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Templeton, W. P.
Wells, S. R.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Wallace, Captain D. E.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)



Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wise, Sir Fredric
Mr. Hayes and Mr. B. Smith.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I beg to move, in page 1, line 15, after the word "words "to insert the words
in respect of all persons who, under the National Insurance Act, 1911, enter the national insurance scheme as from the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-six.
This would apply the provisions of the Bill only to new entrants, and would not affect the benefits paid to those who were in the scheme before the date mentioned. This is a very important Amendment. I know perfectly well that Amendments handed in at the last moment are sometimes regarded with a certain amount of prejudice as being hasty and ill thought out. This Amendment on the other hand was perhaps, handed in a little late precisely because it has been carefully thought out. I need hardly say for my part and for my hon. Friends who sit here that we are strongly opposed to applying the proposals in this Bill even for new entrants. We think the provisions should not be allowed to pass into law, but we do say if they are to be applied at all it would be real breach of faith for those old entrants who have been 18 or 20 years in the scheme if they are now to be deprived of the prospects which were held out to them when the scheme was started. This Amendment contains a principle which is so obviously fair that the Minister can hardly fail to accept it. If he refuses, it will win the support of Members on all sides.
The right hon. Gentleman himself formerly asked two questions, first, were the proposals a breach of faith, and second, if not, were they fair? I put a third question: Is it a statesman-like thing to do? Is there any real financial or economic benefit sufficient to compensate for the injury to health? My last question does not arise on this Amendment, but I submit there is a clear breach of faith in the case of these men. Everyone from 16 to 60 was put on a flit scale of benefit and contribution, and it was one of the great points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd
George) when he introduced the scheme that it was particularly favourable to the old men. That exposed him to the attack: "Your scheme is very favourable to the old men, but what about the young men? Surely it must be correspondingly unfavourable to the young men. "That argument was used widely in the House of Commons, even by hon. Members who are now Members of the Government. "'Why, "they said, "the Hearts of Oak will do as much for the young men as you are proposing to do. "The answer was quite simple. It was quite true that for the first 18 or 20 years, until the period during which the Sinking Fund was to be repaid had worked itself out, these benefits which the young men could expect would be small in relation to the premiums they had been called on to pay. But, it was answered, when the deficiency period has been worked off the young men will leap the whole of the benefits which are rightly promised because the Government contribution of two-ninths will still continue and it was on the strength of these assurances that the schemes was successfully launched. Now these rights have matured and we are entitled to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that his proposals will still further postpone the time when these benefits can be paid.

Mr. TAYLOR: On a point of Order, Mr. Chairman, is it possible to provide the hon. Member for Lancaster (Sir Gerald Strickland) with a mattress?

Mr. W. THORNE: Is any attention being paid to the Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans)?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: This Amendment will guarantee to the young men what they were led to expect. The hon. Member for East Perthshire (Mr. Skelton) was so little convinced by the argument of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that there had been no breach of faith, that the only reason he could give for ignoring that argument was that if there had been a breach of faith it did not matter. His argument with regard to the commitments of previous Parliaments is undoubtedly sound
in theory. But if Parliament disregards the commitments by previous Parliaments it will undoubtedly bring Parliamentary institutions in this country into disrepute. If the right hon. Gentleman refuses to accept the Amendment, what prospects have the young men under the scheme?
I will again quote from a speech which the right hon. Gentleman made in this House on the 22nd July last year. He was replying to the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) that employers' and employés' contributions should be reduced each by one penny. At that date he was not prepared to do what will be done by the Economy Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said:
I was anxious because I was not certain whether he (Sir R. Horne) was contemplating that in future it would lie possible to reduce the contributions while still retaining the additional benefits which are being declared by the societies as the result of surpluses accumulated in past quinquennial periods or whether he proposes to do away with those additional benefits and use the money which would be required for that purpose to reduce the contributions."[Interruption.]

The CHAIRMAN: I must ask hon. Members to allow the hon. Member to proceed.

Miss WILKINSON: We are encouraging him.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: It would be a retrograde step …

Miss WILKINSON: On a point of Order. May I point out that the hon. Member is reading this very important matter so quickly that those who are anxious to follow cannot understand him. Can we ask him through you, Mr. Chairman, if he would mind reading it a little more slowly?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Lady is so ready of hearing that I am sure she can follow.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: The part that I was reading was this:
It would be a retrograde step in the efforts which we have been making to improve the general health of our people, and incidentally of course, it would leave its injurious effect upon the finances of the societies because those additional benefits are in the nature of preventive measures and are therefore reducing the calls on and the liabilities of the approved societies. He may say that he believes it would be possible to reduce the contribution without reducing the additional benefits.
I would point out there is a very close analogy to the proposals which I am making in the recent practice of the present administration. When they recently decided that they would have to reduce the pay of the fighting services they decided it was only fair to pay the present rates of pay to men serving and to reduce the rates only to new entrants. I am far from saying that I shall be satisfied with the Bill even if the right hon. Gentleman accepted the Amendment, but it would remove one grave injustice. If he dismiss the charge of breach of faith, and thinks we have failed to bring home this charge, let him fall back upon the other question, and ask is it fair that these young men who have been paying excessive contributions should be called upon to receive reduced benefits? I feel this Amendment must commend itself to the right hon. Gentleman. If it does not so commend itself, it must be due to some lack of advocacy on my part. I have given my grounds for hoping that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept it. If he does not accept it, we shall certainly divide the Committee upon it, and I hope we shall receive the support of all sections of the House.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Amendment to which the hon. and gallant Baronet devoted so much thought and care can only mean that the reduction in the rate of contribution will be confined to persons coming into the scheme from 31st March next. It is a. broad description of the Amendment, which is a wrecking Amendment, and I cannot accept it. The effect of the hon. Baronet's proposal will be to postpone that relief for a generation.

Mr. TAYLOR: Will someone pay attention to the bon. Member opposite who is asleep?

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: May I also call attention to the hon. Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans)?

The CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members seem to be under the impression that it is out of order to sleep in the House. That is not so, so long as it is done with due quietness.

Mr. MARDY JONES: On a point of Order. Is the Committee to understand
that it is not out of order to sleep in the House? If so, will proper accommodation be provided?

Mr. THOMAS: The right hon. Gentleman considers the Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Baronet to be a wrecking Amendment. We are not responsible for it and therefore I am not called upon to answer whether that is its intention or not. Perhaps a Member of the hon. Baronet's party will reply on that point. I will, however, give reasons why we feel compelled to support it. If we were satisfied that it was a wrecking Amendment—and I should like to know more about that—it is probable we would have to reconsider the situation, but on its merits I would put this to the right hon. Gentleman: We have alleged, and he has equally strongly denied, that this Clause represents a breach of faith. We put forward that claim on the ground of what we believe to be a bargain made when the 1911 Act was put through the House. That is solely the ground of our claim, but if this Amendment is carried any new entrant in the scheme will know the exact situation. He will know that he cannot say he is treated unfairly or that any bargain was made on his behalf. He may say: However much I disagree with the State in other Measures, I have no complaint so far as this Measure is concerned. That is a reasonable proposition and must commend itself to many hon. Members on the opposite side of the House.

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has enough experience to know that he should address the Chair. I am not sitting there.

Mr. THOMAS: For the reasons I have given, I support the Amendment.

Mr. HARRIS: The proposal has been made to protect the Government from the implication that they have broken faith with the men and women who have subscribed to the Insurance Act. These men and women were induced to do so upon the understanding that the State was to make this contribution on a certain basis, and it is not fair to make this Clause retrospective, and thus interfere with the rights that have been assured to the subscribers to the Act for a great many years. The proposal made by the hon. Baronet is of a broad practical nature, and provides for the future. New entrants
will understand on what conditions they are insured. They will understand that the contribution of the State is decreased, and that they have to depend on their own contributions for the benefits to which they are entitled. I think it is very unfortunate that to-day is the 1st April, and that a proposal put forward of a practical kind should be treated with contempt and passed aside with a few words. This morning's papers state that the deficit on the Budget is £14,000,000. The Government is spending a whole day collecting a few pounds out of the poor in the country for the benefit of the rich.

Miss WILKINSON: It is said by hon. Members on the opposite side, when various Resolutions dealing with their interests are under discussion, that above all things the pledge of a Government is sacred. We have been told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that certain expenditure was to be regarded as sacred. He detailed the interest on the War Loan that he regarded as sacrosanct. But surely in this Amendment we are dealing with a matter of simple commercial morality. In 1911 the people who were then receiving under £160 were compulsorily insured. They were told they would have certain benefits in respect of certain contributions and that additional benefits would be paid to them if their societies were properly managed. If that were done by a private insurance company, the law of this country would insist that, so long as the scheme was solvent and there was not actually a deficit on the funds, the obligations that were made at the time the policy-holders took out the policy must be carried out. If the Minister of Health had said that, as regards existing societies and existing policy-holders, the societies were bankrupt and that the actuarial calculation was such that it was literally impossible to pay the promised benefits to those who had entered, then, I think this House, while realising the very serious nature of the situation, would have had to say that owing to a faulty actuarial calculation or, as in the case of the unemployment insurance fund, to a situation that had arisen that was quite outside the purview of those who drew up the original tables of benefits, then reductions would have to take place. But here exactly the contrary has taken place. You have the Minister of Health coming like a chairman of directors to the people represent-
ing the shareholders and saying that the business has succeeded beyond all expectation, and that as a matter of fact the surplus is far in advance of anything that was contemplated. I should say that a chairman of directors who came before his shareholders and put this glowing picture of a surplus before them and then followed it up by saying: "Therefore we are going to reduce the dividends "would have an extraordinary reception from his shareholders. That, I suggest, is precisely what the right hon. Gentleman is doing.
We are continually reading in the papers of companies that, having produced an excellent surplus, proceed to distribute bonus shares to their members. I suggest that in this case the Minister is in exactly the position of a chairman of directors who produces a large surplus and, instead of offering bonus shares to his shareholders, proceeds to say he is going to reduce the dividend. But because we are dealing with people whose income is under £250 a year and people who have not got the political pull that the Friends of the right hon. Gentleman have got, then we have this extraordinary breach of ordinary, decent, everyday commercial right. As regards the people who are actual shareholders, the people who have paid in their money under a pledge of the Government and have been told they were going to have additional benefits, these people are now told that instead of having the benefits of the surplus they are going to have a reduction of dividend, a reduction of their additional benefit. If any ordinary company was doing this, people would impugn the honour of the directors. Surely we are not going to have a condition in which the honour of the State is impugned.
We are dealing with people who cannot protect themselves. If people are in an ordinary commercial company and have this kind of sharp trick used against them, they are at least able to protest and leave the company or proceed against it for damages. We are in the position that if a man refuses to pay his insurance contribution he can be taken to the Police Court and punished. We are dealing with people who have no option whatever, people who have the whole force of the State against them to force them into insurance, and they are now
told that after all these years the State is going to use its tyrannical power in order to cut down the amounts due to them. Why is it? One could understand it if it were some great national emergency. Heaven knows, these 15,000,000 people have sacrificed far more than Members on the other side have done, but that was in a time of national emergency. Why are they being asked to sacrifice now? It is in order that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his last Budget could hand back £10,000,000 to the Super-tax payers of this country. No matter how he tries to excuse it, nothing can get away from that fact which, so far as my colleagues on this side of the House are concerned, is going to be rubbed in with salt on every platform in the country. In order that the people best able to pay taxes shall have a rebate of £10,000,000 a year in Super-tax, we are to have the Minister of Health coming here saying that those to whom the country's word has been pledged since 1911 are to be robbed in this way and forced into the Police Court and punished if they protest against it.

Mr. LANSBURY: I am delighted to find so many hon. Members awake in this House. I have reason to support this Amendment, because it seems to me that it enables the Committee to do justice to the people to whom these promises were made. I am one of the very few men who voted against the Insurance Act when it became law originally, and I did so because I took no stock of, and had no faith in, the promises—the lavish promises—that were made as to what would be done with these surpluses when they accumulated. I am speaking in the presence of a good number of hon. Members who were in the House at that time, and there is not one of them but was carried away by the picture of a new England, a new Scotland, and a new Wales that was going to be the result of this National Health Insurance. We were to get rid of slums, we were to spend no more money on public health. It was all going to be done because this wonderful scheme was going to accumulate money to enable everybody to get at the moment they needed it all the medicine, all the sanatoria, and all the treatment they required. Precious few of those things have happened. Occasionally my faith in my own judgment of
15 years ago has at times wavered, and when I knew that my hon. Friends had appointed a Royal Commission it seemed to me at long last that the people who had been paying were to get some of the wonderful things that were promised them. I have sat through this Debate, and the one thing that has struck me most is the cynical impudence of the Minister of Health and his assistant—the cool, contemptuous manner in which they have treated every argument put up.

The CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow the hon. Member to use the word "impudence."

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask, then, if "insolent" is a Parliamentary expression, because I will withdraw the word "impudence "without any hesitation.

The CHAIRMAN: It is not an unparliamentary expression.

Mr. LANSBURY: Well, then, I will say the cynical insolence with which the right hon. Gentleman has treated every argument put up. It was once said in this House, and I am not sure that it was not said during the figure juggle that took place over the original Bill, that figures cannot lie but that liars can figure. The most extraordinary thing to me is that in this juggle of figures the only thing that emerges is that the people who have been forced compulsorily to pay into this fund on condition that the State was to do certain things, are to be now faced with the fact that the State does not intend to carry out its obligations. One lot of figures has been set against another lot, but when all is said and done, £2,800,000 is going to be saved from somewhere. It is going to be saved out of the health of the men and women and children who become chargeable to these funds. No one has attempted in any sort of way to controvert that. Therefore, I maintain that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) and his colleagues are making truth of the statements that were made by Sir James O'Grady and the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Snowden) and several more of us who voted against the Third Reading of the National Health Insurance Bill on the ground that it would not work and that the Government of the day did not intend that the benefits which they talked about would follow.
Well, now, we have an explanation of it here this morning, and the justification of it all is that the nation is so poor. I spoke from this Box amid continual interruption about a, fortnight ago, and one hon. Member opposite after another—colonels, majors, admirals—all shouted out something about the ex-service men and honour of our country. The great bulk of the people who pay into this fund, and whom you are going to plunder and rob, are men who served in the Army across the seas and at home. You are going to pay them back by robbing them of a miserable £2,800,000. If you are not ashamed of it, I am. The right hon. Gentleman, like me, gets his meals regularly, and has a decent home, and, therefore, I suppose, he has never known, as I have never known, what it was to be ill with a wife and family and only 15s. coming in to take care of them on and to feed them. People like me are continually told, so, too, are the Communists, that they degrade and dishonour this country. I say you are degrading and dishonouring this country by robbing and plundering these men and their dependants in the fashion you are doing. There has never been a more barefaced and audacious betrayal of men than has taken place in this House to-night. If it stood alone, it would be bad enough. But when you know that in this City of London, the richest city in the world, ex-service men were bludgeoned and kicked and battered—

The CHAIRMAN: That is not in order on this Amendment.

8.0 A.M.

Mr. LANSBURY: I will not pursue that matter further, except to say that this House and this Government is lost to all sense of shame or decency in their treatment of the victims of the social system and of the War for which they were responsible. This proposal we are now discussing is, I say, the most iniquitous of them all, because an unemployed man has got his health, for a time at least, at any rate. But these people are the people who will be sick and will become infirm and almost helpless. It is for £2,800,000—that is all that you are going to save. To hear the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer talk, one would imagine that there was no other
means by which we could make economies. There are plenty of ways we could have suggested for economising if the Government wanted us to do so, but it seems to me, regarding this Government, that when they look round to try and discover where they can save money their eyes immediately go to the most helpless of the population they never raise their eyes any further than the poorest of the poor. If they are in earnest in all their talk about social reform, in all their talk about love, peace and brotherhood for the working people, if they really believe that these men who went out and fought, some of them side by side with hon. Members opposite, are heroes, and are worth what supporters of the Government said they were worth at the time, I cannot imagine how any one of the party opposite, if really sincere, can vote for this wretched Bill. I cannot understand the mentality of the men who do these sorts of things. Hon Members opposite say that people like me are preachers of class hatred. It is they who create class hatred by this kind of legislation, and if it is persisted in I am certain of this, that they will have class bitterness and class hatred of a sort they will be surprised to find. The

people of this country it was once said have been asleep. When they wake they will be hungry, and not to be fed on the Government's humbug of promises and on the cant and hypocrisy of the brotherhood of the trenches. They will find their intellectual food, raise themselves in an army and overthrow for good and all the infernal system of capitalism the party opposite are upholding here to-day; that they are upholding for the purpose of enabling the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that is relevant.

Mr. LANSBURY: It was once said that "Britain was a paradies for the rich and hell for the poor. "This Bill is going to make it more a hell for the poor—it is intended to do so—and it is intended to help the rich to keep the paradise that they have robbed and plundered for.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put: "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 181; Noes, 106.

Division No. 120.]
AYES.
[8.3 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Crookshank,Cpt. H.(Lindsey.Gainsbro)
Haslam, Henry C.


Ainsworth Major Charles
Dalkeith, Earl of
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Albery, Irving James
Davidson,J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V, L. (Bootle)


Alexander, Sir Win. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Balniel, Lord
Dawson, Sir Philip
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hills, Major John Waller


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. sir D.(St. Marylebone)


Blundell, F. N.
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Boothby, R. J. G.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Holt, Captain H. P.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Fermoy, Lord
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Brass, Captain W.
Fielden, E. B.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)


Briscoe, Richard George
Gadle, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony
Hume, Sir G. H.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Ganzoni. Sir John
Huntingfield, Lord


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Gee, Captain R
Jacob, A. E.


Burgoyne Lieut.-Colonel sir Alan
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Goff, Sir Park
Lamb, J. O.


Campbell, E. T.
Grace, John
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt.R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Loder, J. de V.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Grotrian, H. Brent
Looker, Herbert William


Chapman, sir S.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Lougher, L.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Cope, Major William
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Luce, Major-Gen, sir Richard Harman


Couper, J. B.
Hammersley, S. S.
Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Macdonald, Capt. P. D, (I. of W.)


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Hartington, Marquees of
Macintyre, Ian


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
McLean. Major A.


Macmillan, Captain H.
Ramsden, E.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Rentoul, G. S.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Malone. Major P. B.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Templeton, W. P.


Margesson, Capt. D.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Meller, R. J.
Rye, F. G.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Merriman, F. B.
Salmon, Major I.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hu1l)


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut. Col. J. T. C.
Sandon. Lord
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Moreing, Captain A. H.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Wells, S. R.


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Bowerby)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Murchison, C. K.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Nelson, Sir Frank
Shepperson, E. W.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Neville, R. J.
Skelton, A. N.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Wise, Sir Fredric


Nuttall, Ellis
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine.C.)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & S Hyde)


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Smithers, Waldron
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Stanley, Col. Hon.G.F. (Will'sden.E.)



Plicher, G.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Major Sir Harry Barnston and


Radford, E. A.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Captain Viscount Curzon.


Raine, W.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hardle, George D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Ammon, Charles George
Harris, Percy A.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayday, Arthur
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barnes, A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barr, J.
Hirst, G. H.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Calthness)


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sitch, Charles H.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bowerman, Rt, Hon. Charles W.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bromfield, William
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bromley, J.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stamford, T. W.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Stephen, Campbell


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sullivan, Joseph


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, T. I, Mardy (Pontypridd)
Taylor, R. A.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kelly, W. T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Compton, Joseph
Kennedy, T.
Thurtle, E.


Connolly, M.
Kirkwood, D.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, W. G.
Lansbury, George
Townend, A. E.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lawson, John James
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Dalton, Hugh
Lee. F.
Varley, Frank B.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lindley, F. W.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Livingstone. A. M.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Day, Colonel Harry
Lunn, William
Watson, W. M. (Duntermline)


Dennison, R.
Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Duncan, C.
Mackinder, W.
Westwood, J.


Dunnico, H.
MacLaren, Andrew
whiteley, W.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maxton, James
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gibbins, Joseph
Montague, Frederick
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Gillatt, George M.
Morris, R. H.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Gosling, Harry
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Oliver, George Harold
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Palin, John Henry
Windsor, Walter


Groves, T.
Paling, W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Hall G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Hayes and Mr. Warne.

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."

The committee divided: Ayes, 106; Noes, 180.

Division No. 121.]
AYES.
[8.10 a.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Connolly, M.


Ammon, Charles George
Broad, F. A.
Cove, W. G.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Bromfield, William
Crawfurd, H. E.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Bromley, J.
Dalton, Hugh


Barnes, A.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)


Barr, J.
Buchanan, G.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Batey, Joseph
Cluse, W. S.
Day, Colonel Harry


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Compton, Joseph
Dennison, R.


Duncan, C.
Lansbury, George
Stamford, T. W.


Dunnico, H.
Lawson, John James
Stephen, Campbell


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lee, F.
Sullivan, Joseph


Gibbins, Joseph
Lindley, F. W.
Taylor, R. A.


Gillett, George M.
Livingstone, A. M.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Gosling, Harry
Lunn, William
Thurtle, E.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Tinker, John Joseph


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mackinder, W.
Townend, A. E.


Groves, T.
MacLaren, Andrew
Treveiyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Grundy, T. W.
Maxton, James
Varley, Frank B.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Montague, Frederick
Viant, S. P.


Hardle, George D.
Morris, R. H.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Harris, Percy A.
Morrison. R. C (Tottenham, N.)
Warne, G. H.


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Oliver, George Harold
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hayday, Arthur
Palin, John Henry
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hayes, John Henry
Paling, W.
Westwood, J.


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Whiteley, W.


Hirst, G. H.
Potts, John S.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Hirst, W (Bradford, South)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Windsor, Walter


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sitch, Charles H.



Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Sir Godfrey Collins and Sir Robert Hutchison.


Kennedy, T.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)



Kirkwood, D.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Macmillan, Captain H.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Gee, Captain R.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Albery, Irving James
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Malone, Major P. B.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Goff, Sir Park
Margesson, Captain D.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Grace, John
Meller, R. J.


Balniel, Lord
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Merriman, F. B.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Grotrian, H. Brent
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T, C. R. (Ayr)


Blundell, F. N.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. O.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hammersley, S. S.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Brass, Captain W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Murchison, C. K.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hartington, Marquess of
Nelson, Sir Frank


Briscoe, Richard George
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Neville, R. J.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Haslam, Henry C.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Nuttall, Ellis


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootie)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Pilcher, G.


Campbell, E. T.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth S)
Hills, Major John Waller
Radford, E. A.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Raine, W.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Holbrook, sir Arthur Richard
Ramsden, E.


Chapman, Sir S.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Rentoul, G. S.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cope, Major William
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Couper, J. B.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hudson, R, S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Courthope, Lieut.Col. George L,
Hume, Sir G. H.
Rye, F. G.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Huntingfield, Lord
Salmon, Major I.


Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jacob, A. E.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Davidson,J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Kindersley, Major Guy M,
Sandon, Lord


Davies, Dr, Vernon
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeevll)
Lamb, J. Q.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirenecester)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Dawson, Sir Philip
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Shepperson, E. W.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Loder, J. de V.
Skelton, A. N.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Looker, Herbert William
Slaney, Major P. Kenyan


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Lougher, L.
Smith. R. W. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dlne.C.)


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Smithers, Waldron


Fielden, E. B.
Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Maclntyre, Ian
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Ganzoni, Sir John
McLean, Major A.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)




Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Stott. Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Wallace, Captain D. E.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Strickland, Sir Gerald
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Stuart, Han. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Tasker, Major R. InIgo
Wells, S. R.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Templeton, W. P.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.



Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Captain Viscount Curzon and




Captain Bower.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill,' be now put."

Question put, "That the Question, 'That the Clause stand part of the Bill,' be now put."

The committee divided: Ayes, 174; Noes, 102.

Division No. 122.]
AYES.
[8.20 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gunston, Captain D. W.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings]


Albery, Irving James
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Hammersley, S. S.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, cent'l)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Plicher, G.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Hartington, Marquess of
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Radford, E. A.


Balnfel, Lord
Haslam, Henry C.
Raine, W.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Ramsden, E.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd,Henley)
Rentoul, G. S.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Henderson, Lieut-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Blundell, F. N.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Brass, Captain W.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Rye, F. G.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hills, Major John Waller
Salmon, Major I.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Holbrook, sir Arthur Richard
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Holt, Captain H. P.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Sandon, Lord


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D,


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Campbell, E. T.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth. S)
Huntingfield, Lord
Shepperson, E. W.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Skelton, A. N.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. {Ladywood)
Jacob, A. E.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Chapman, Sir S.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dlne.C.)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A, D.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cope, Major William
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Smithers, Waldron


Couper, J, B.
Lamb, J. Q.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden,E.)


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Loder, J. de V.
Stanley. Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Looker, Herbert William
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Dalkelth, Earl of
Lougher, L.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Davidson,J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Tasker, Major R. InIgo


Davies, Mai. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovll)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Templeton, W. P.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Maclntyre, Ian
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Dawson, Sir Philip
McLean, Major A.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Macmillan, Captain H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Evans, Captain A, (Cardiff, South)
Malone, Major P. B.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Everard, W. Lindsay
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Flelden, E. B.
Margesson, Captain D.
Wells, S. R.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Meller, R. J.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Merriman, F. B.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Ganzoni, Sir John,
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Gee, Captain R.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Moore, Lieut-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Goff Sir Park
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Grace, John
Murchison, C. K.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Nelson, Sir Frank



Greene, W. P. Crawford
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grotrian, H. Brent
Nuttall, Ellis
Captain Bowyer and Captain




Viscount Curzon.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hardle, George D.
Potts, John S.


Ammon, Charles George
Harris, Percy A.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayday, Arthur
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barnes, A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barr, J.
Hirst, G. H.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sitch, Charles H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hutchison, sir Robert (Montrose)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Broad, F. A
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey. Rotherhithe)


Bromfield, William
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bromley, J.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stamford, T. W.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Stephen, Campbell


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sullivan, Joseph


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Taylor, R. A.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kelly, W. T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Compton, Joseph
Kennedy, T.
Thurtle, E.


Connolly, M.
Kirkwood, D.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, W. G.
Lansbury, George
Townend, A. E.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lawson, John James
Varley, Frank B.


Dalton, Hugh
Lee, F.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lindley, F. W.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Livingstone, A. M.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Day, Colonel Harry
Lunn, William
Westwood, J.


Dennison, R.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Whiteley, W.


Duncan, C.
Mackinder, W.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Dunnico, H.
MacLaren, Andrew
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maxton, James
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Gibbins, Joseph
Montague, Frederick
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gillett, George M.
Morris, R. H.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Gosling, Harry
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Windsor, Walter


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Oliver, George Harold
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Groves, T.
Palin, John Henry



Grundy, T. W.
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Mr. Warne and Mr. Hayes.

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The committee divided: Ayes, 169; Noes, 104.

CLAUSE 2.—(Amendment of s. 83 of principal Act.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

Mr. THOMAS: I desire, on the Motion new before the Committee, to draw attention to the extraordinary procedure during the last three hours. The Whips of the Government gave a, clear indication to us in spite of every protest, in spite of all the representations, that the Government intended and insisted upon getting Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill. That was the mandate to their supporters; that was the brutal instruction to us. We told them that they were not likely to succeed,
but about two hours ago the Minister of Health said: We want to go on with the fight. Two hours ago I asked hint whether the time had not, arrived for adjourning and going home, and he said: As long as you want to fight we will fight. That is not our only complaint. There were two Amendments that we not only understood were in order, but you, Sir, knew were in order. Both Amendments raised an important point of principle that had not yet been touched.

The CHAIRMAN: It has been ruled by Mr. Speaker that the responsibility must rest with the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS: I still repeat what I said.

THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that on a Motion of that kind Mr. Speaker ruled in a most categorical way that the responsibility rested with the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS: I am dealing with the moving of the Closure.

The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker laid down that anyone can move the Closure at any time, and that the responsibility for accepting it rested entirely on the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS: Then our complaint is against the Closure being moved and accepted. I again repeat the grounds of our complaint.

Mr. D. HERBERT: Has it not also been ruled that the Closure, having been carried by the House, cannot afterwards be criticised.

The CHAIRMAN: That is so. I did not understand what the development of the right hon. Gentleman's argument was going to be.

Mr. THOMAS: In answer to my right hon. Friend as to the Government's view of the course of the night's Debate, he answered clearly and specifically that, in his judgment, the Debate was conducted properly, without waste of time or obstruction. That was the answer of the right hon. Gentleman to the Leader of the Opposition. When my right hon. Friend pressed him as to the meaning of the word obstruction, he answered that he meant obstruction to the particular Motion that was then before the Committee. That was a few hours ago. At that time, there were four Amendments on the Paper which we as an Opposition understood and knew were in order. We expected them to be called, but, in the result, neither of these Amendments is allowed to be discussed, and we are prevented—

The CHAIRMAN: It is entirely my responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly in order in criticising the Government for wishing the House to sit all night, but when it is a question of Closure or selection, the responsibility is vested in me, or any other occupant of the Chair, by various Standing Orders. I am responsible, and it is open to the right hon. Gentleman to challenge me in proper form.

Mr. THOMAS: I have said all I want to say on that point, and I now come back to the Government, who are responsible for the existing situation—a situation that enables a Clause of the Bill to pass this Committee without a discussion. Again, in the words of the right hon. Gentleman, so far as the Government were concerned they were prepared to continue as long as we were. I want to say we are prepared to continue. Having made all the efforts to try and get the Government to reconsider their position, having sat and listened to all the pleadings of their own side, having seen the Minister ruthlessly turn down every proposal from his side and not attempt to answer most from this side, having gone from 3.45 to now through that procedure, we will be delighted to continue. I invite the Government to go on.

Sir G. COLLINS: We find, after 17 hours, that the Government have moved to report Progress, and I find myself for the first time in complete agreement with the Government of the clay to-day. I only wish they had moved to report Progress at an earlier stage so that we could have discussed more fully some of the Amendments standing on the Order Paper dealing with Clause 1. The Debate during the last 17 hours has been a very remarkable one. I can hardly bring myself to recollect a single Debate extending over 17 hours during which there has hardly been a single Member from the Government side who has supported the Government of the day. Over 200 Members of the Government have been in attendance throughout the whole 17 hours, and I must compliment them on their strict attention to duty. I only wish they had given a more full expression to the thoughts in their minds.
The only speakers we have had from the Government side during the last 17 hours have been Members who have spoken against the Government. I associate myself with the protests made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Thomas) in regard to certain Amendments on the Paper which have not been discussed, and I hope when the House meets after Easter we may have more time to discuss this Bill. May I draw the attention of the Minister of Health to the very unusual practice, which he has instituted to-day, of starting the Committee stage of a very important Bill 48 hours before the House
rises. It has placed the House in a position of great difficulty, and perhaps the slow progress made by the Government may cause them not to take that step in the future.

Mr. STEPHEN: I want to join in the protest against the conduct of the Government in regard to this Measure. I think it is very unfortunate that the Minister of Health has taken the line he has with regard to this important business. In connection with the Economy Bill I think there is one point on which all the Members of the House are in agreement and that is the importance of the Measure in regard to the health of millions of the people of this country. It is said from the Government Bench that as a result of this Measure no evil consequences will accrue to so many of those millions of working-class people, and when the Committee has tried to take the opportunity of examining this question we find the Minister of Health is quite regardless of the opinions on the opposite side of the House.
It has been pointed out already by the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) that the course that has been taken with this Measure is a very extraordinary one—to try and take this Committee stage so close to a period of recess —and it seems to me that it is altogether in keeping with the general practice of the present Minister of Health. Everything in the House and every Measure he has been responsible for is characterised in so far as discussion in the House is concerned, by a callous disregard of the rights of the Opposition in the House. On more than one occasion there have been unpleasant scenes, and unpleasant circumstances have arisen in the House, because of the display of temper and the unwillingness on the part of the Minister to rise to the point of view of the Opposition. It has appeared to some of us that the only opinions that he considers at all are those which come from his own benches.
In the course of this Debate there have not been very many of those opinions from his own benches, but we have had a very long discussion, and in that discussion the Minister has spent the greater part of his time in replying to Members of his own party. I think that this Committee—the minority Members of this Committee have got certain rights and that it is
not going to be to the advantage of the majority Members of the Committee if this Minister is allowed to carry on in the same callous disregard of those who, take a different view from himself in the House. When one of his supporters was speaking, because he pointed to the fact that this was a Bill meant to plunder the funds built up as a result of the moneys of members of the working class—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that this Debate cannot be one of revision. He is confined to the terms of the Motion before the Committee.

Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member not perfectly in order in reviewing the actions of the Minister which have caused the unduly long sitting and the circumstances in which we now find ourselves If he is reviewing the action of the House that has caused the present crisis, surely he is in order.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The exact Motion before the Committee is one to report Progress.

Mr. BUCHANAN: If the circumstances which have led to the Motion to report Progress have arisen out of certain actions of the Government in keeping us sitting so many hours, is not the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) entitled to criticise the actions of the Minister that have keep us sitting so long.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Seeing that the motion before the Committee is that we report Progress, is not the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) in order in questioning the Progress which we are going to Report?

Mr. J. HUDSON: As no progress is made unless we may review the actions of the Minister during the progress of the discussion, is it not possible to review the action of the Minister during that period?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It certainly would not be in order to discuss all that has gone on in the Committee during the Sitting. The only question before the Committee is whether we should report Progress—nothing more.

Mr. BECKETT: The difficulty is that many of us have these very serious matters to raise from our people who are being robbed, and owing to the very unfair action and mean action of the Chair—

HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not cast reflections on the action of the Chair.

Mr. BECKETT: I had no intention of casting any reflection on the present occupant of the Chair.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not cast reflections on any occupant of the Chair. The hon. Member is still in possession of the Committee.

Mr. BECKETT: Well, as I was not allowed to finish my remarks before, I do not intend to finish them now.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member (Mr. Beckett) rose to a. point of order. I am referring to the hon. Member behind him (Mr. Stephen).

Mr. BECKETT: May I just explain that I did not address that remark to you, but to hon. Members opposite.

Mr. STEPHEN: I am sorry if I did not make plain that I had no intention of trying to repeat all the arguments used in this House for the last 15 or 16 hours. I have no doubt that I could make a fair shape at doing so, because I have sat on these benches for a good part of the Debate and have tried on various occasions to get taking part. I was only calling attention to a remark made by one of the supporters of the Government in connection with this Debate in order to draw attention to the way the Minister of Health reacted to the words used by one of the Members on the benches behind me. It was quite evident to us sitting here who were watching, that his face quite distinctly showed the marks of ill temper. I myself felt very glad that the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby) did not see the face of one of his Leaders when he was making his remarks. Otherwise, we might have been getting a new Member for the Labour party.
During these hours of Debate all the time the opposition was present in such
large numbers that some of us had to sit on benches that belonged to either the Liberal or the Tory party—I do not know which—which are below the Gangway. Although we had so many Members there anxious to take part in the Debate right throughout the discussion, the Minister of Health treated the Opposition in the House with the utmost contempt. Now at this stage in the morning he has got the audacity to bring forward this motion to report Progress. He was very grandiloquent with regard to his preparations for fighting the opposition. He talked as if the legions behind him would prove themselves tireless and able for all efforts, but one Division after another showed that in spite of his brave words the strength of the forces behind him was melting away.
9.0. A.M.
In spite of the pledge that he gave to the House that he would go on fighting. we have now got this Motion, which a contemptuous confession on the part of the Minister of Health that he is sick of the fight, or, if he is not sick of it, the members of his own party are absolutely sick of it, and are not prepared to follow him any longer in the progress of the Measure. I submit that this is a most unfortunate position in which the Committee is placed. If want to know if any pledges that are given by the Minister of Health—any pledges given by Members of this Government—are worth anything at all—if they are going to be of the same category as the one we bad when the Minister was confident and feeling a little bit more fresh than he felt a short time ago.
I would submit that on a matter of this importance the Minister of Health might have shown more foresight and consideration. This Measure is one which is fraught with the utmost importance for many millions of people in this country. I also want to point out that the millions of these people are members of the working class. Because they are members of the working class that is no reason why the Minister of Health should think that the point of view of the opposition regarding the interests of these people should not be considered. Ever so many of the Members on these benches have had experience of the working of National Health Insurance.
The same thing cannot be said of the Members on the Government side of the House. They know little about the Measure. They will know a little bit more before they are finished with the Measure in the House, and much more before they are finished with it in their constituencies. There are many of us quite confident that they will finish in their own constituencies by their constituencies finishing with them. In making this protest against the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman, and in censuring him for his pusillanimous conduct, which is somewhat contrary to the natural arrogance of his ordinary manner, I would point out that he has no right to treat the position in the way he has done, especially considering the fact that in the one by-election which has taken place since this Measure was introduced the people of that division plainly showed they were against this Measure and against the proposals of the Government. Here now, in the morning, he wants to report Progress, saying to himself, "I have got away with this Clause; I have stolen this Clause from the Committee; I have not listened to the arguments from the other side, I am afraid to. "That was the temper of the Minister of Health throughout the whole of the discussion. I hope he will give us some more definite assurance with regard to the future progress of the Measure: that he will be more considerate in dealing with the Opposition than during the present Session.
I want also to draw attention to the fact that this Measure is one of such importance that it would be far better if we could try to get to something like a real and satisfactory settlement; something that the Members of all parties would feel was an adequate dealing with the matter than is now possible at this time when we have got into this position. The Minister of Health might be prepared to make some amends, might be prepared to show some repentance for the way in which he has conducted himself during this discussion, by offering to the Opposition something better in days to come, by trying to arrive at something which would be comparatively satisfactory to the Members of the different parties in the House. On the Report stage one does not want to have any repetition of
the kind of thing which has gone on during these hours. One wants to have a real attempt made on the part of the Government and the majority of the House to show some respect for the opinions and the knowledge and experience of the Members on these benches in connection with this matter.
We have heard a great deal said of the importance in foreign affairs of the Locarno spirit. If the Minister of Health had brought into the discussion some of the spirit that has been associated with the Foreign Secretary, at least, nominally, it would have been for the good of the discussion, and we would not have been in the position we are. I want to make the suggestion in the beet interests of the Committee and of all those who are going to be affected by this Measure, and also if he will allow me to say so in the best interests of the Minister of Health himself who, we are sorry, has not altogether done himself justice in this Debate, and has failed in a way that one does not like to see in one who has shown such promise. Garters are not to be earned in the fashion he has followed. I want to put it to him that it is never too late to repent. Let him remember the lines:
While the light holds on to burn,
The greatest sinner may return.
We are still hopeful of him. I want to complain to the Minister that we are always ready to take a very generous view of him.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This is rather beyond the terms of the Motion.

Mr. STEPHEN: It seems to me since the Minister of Health has moved this Motion to report Progress, and since we are discontented with the way in which he has conducted the proceedings and the foresight which he has not displayed in dealing with the situation, I would have thought I was in order in alluding to various ways in which he might get back to more pleasant relations—

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be 'now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 165; Noes, 94.

Division No. 123.]
AYES.
[8.27 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Eden, Captain Anthony
Huntingfield, Lord


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Albery, Irving James
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Jacob, A. E.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Flelden, E. B.
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lamb, J. Q.


Balnlel, Lord
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Ganzoni, Sir John
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Gee, Captain R.
Looker, Herbert William


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Lougher, L.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Brass. Captain W.
Goff, Sir Park
Luce. Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Grace, John
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen'


Briscoe, Richard George
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Macdonald. Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Macintyre, Ian


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Grotrian, H. Brent
McLean, Major A.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Macmillan, Captain H.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Campbell, E. T.
Hammersley, S. S.
Malone, Major P. B.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hartington, Marquess of
Margesson. Capt. D.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Meller, R. J.


Chapman, Sir S.
Haslam, Henry C.
Merriman, F. B.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Cope, Major William
Henderson,Capt.R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Couper, J. B.
Heneage, Lieut-Colonel Arthur P.
Moore, Lieut.Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Hennessy. Major J. R. G.
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hills, Major John Walter
Murchison, C. K.


Dalkelth, Earl of
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Nelson, Sir Frank


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Neville, R. J.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Newman. Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Nuttall, Ellis


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovll)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Clrencester)
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Hume, Sir G. H.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Shepperson, E. W.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Plicher, G.
Skelton, A. N.
Ward, Lt.-Col, A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Radford, E. A.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dine, C.)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Raine, W.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wells, S. R.


Ramsden, E.
Smithers, Waldron
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Rentoul, G. S.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford}
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Rye, F. G.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H,
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Salmon, Major I.
Strickland, Sir Gerald
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Stuart, Hon I. (Moray and Nairn)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Sandeman, A. Stewart
Tasker, Major R. InIgo



Sanderson, Sir Frank
Templeton, W. P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sandon, Lord
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Major Sir Harry Barnston and


Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Captain Viscount Curzon.


Shaw, R. G (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hardle, George D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Ammon, Charles George
Harris, Percy A.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayday, Arthur
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barnes, A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barr, J.
Hirst, G. H.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Calthness)


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sitch, Charles H.


Bockett, John (Gateshead)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Rennle (Penistone)


Bromfield, William
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stamford, T. W.


Bromley, J.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stephen, Campbell


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sullivan, Joseph


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Taylor, R. A.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cluse, W. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Thurtle, E.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kennedy, T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Compton, Joseph
Kirkwood, D.
Townend, A. E.


Connolly, M.
Lansbury, George
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Cove, W. G.
Lawson, John James
Varley, Frank B.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lee, F.
Viant, S. P.


Dalton, Hugh
Lindley, F. W.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Livingstone, A. M.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Westwood, J.


Day, Colonel Harry
MacDonald. Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Whiteley. W.


Dennison. R.
Mackinder, W.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Duncan, C.
MacLaren, Andrew
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Dunnico, H.
Maxton, James.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedweltty)
Montague, Frederick
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gibbins, Joseph
Morris, R. H.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Gillett, George M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, North)
Windsor, Walter


Gesling, Harry
Oliver, George Harold
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grenfell, D, R. (Glamorgan)
Palin, John Henry



Groves, T.
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F, W.
Mr. Warne and Mr. Hayes.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Potts, John S.

Division No. 124.]
AYES.
[9.15 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Neville, R. J.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Grotrian, H. Brent
Newman, Sir R, H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Albery, Irving James
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nuttall, Ellis


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
O'Connor, T, J. (Bedford, Luton)


Alexander, Sir Wm, (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Perkins, Colonel E, K.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Hammerstey, S. S.
Poto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Ashley, Lt-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrld W.
Harmon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pitcher, G.


Balfour. George (Hampstead)
Hartington, Marquess of
Pownall, Lieut-Colonel Asshelon


Balniel, Lord
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Radford, E. A.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C, M.
Raine, W.


Barnston, Major sir Harry
Henderson, Capt. R.R,(Oxf'd,Henley)
Ramsden, E.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootie)
Rentoul, G. S.


Bourne, Captain Robert Craft
Heneage. Lieut.-Col. Arthur p.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bowyer, Captain G. E, W.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Brass, Captain W.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Braseey, Sir Leonard
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Rye, F. G.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hills, Major John Waller
Salmon, Major J.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Holt, Captain H. P.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Sandon, Lord


Butter, Sir Geoffrey
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Shaw. R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Horllck, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Shepperson, E. W.


Campbell, E. T.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'nl
Skelton, A. N.


Cayzer,Maj. Sir Herbt.R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Huntingfield, Lord
Smith, R.W.(Aberd'n&Kinc'dine.C.)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Inskip. Sir Thomas Walker H.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Chapman, Sir S.
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.
Smithers, Waldron


Clarry, Reginald George
Jacob, A. E.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Couper, J. B.
Lamb, J. Q.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Loder, J. de V.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Looker. Herbert William
Stuart, Hon J. (Moray and Nairn)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Galnsbro)
Lougher, L.
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Templeton, W. P.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Maclntyre, Ian
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
McLean, Major A.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Macmillan, Captain H.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Eden, Captain Anthony
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Edmondson, Major A. J
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wells, S. R.


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Malone, Major P. B.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Manningham- Buller, Sir Mervyn
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Margesson, Captain D.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Fremantie. Lieut-Colonel Francis E.
Merriman, F. B.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Ganzonl, Sir John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Gee, Captain R.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge&Hyde)


Glbba, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Goff, Sir Park
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Cllve



Grace, John
Murchison, C. K.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Major Cope and Lord Stanley.




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Dennison, R.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)


Ammon, Charles George
Duncan, C.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown]


Attlee, Clement Richard
Dunnlco, H.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Gibbins, Joseph
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Barnes, A.
Gillett, George M.
Kelly, W. T,


Barr, J.
Gosling, Harry
Kennedy, T.


Batey, Joseph
Grenfeil, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Kirkwood, D.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Groves, T,
Lansbury, George


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Grundy, T. W.
Lawson, John James


Broad, F. A.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lee, F.


Bromfield, William
Hardie, George D.
Lindley, F. W.


Bromley, J.
Harris, Percy A.
Livingstone, A. M.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Lunn, William


Buchanan, G.
Hayday, Arthur
MacDonatd, Rt. Hon. J,R.(Aberaven)


Clute, W. S.
Hayes, John Henry
Mackinder, W.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
MacLaren, Andrew


Compton, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Maxton, James


Connolly, M,
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Montague, Frederick


Cove, W. G.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Morris, R. H.


Dalton, Hugh
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Oliver, George Harold


Day, Colonel Harry
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Paling, W.




Potts, John S.
Sullivan, Joseph
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Richardson, R. (Hougbton-le-Spring)
Taylor, H. A.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Saklatvala, Shapurji
Thomas. Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Thurtle, E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


short, Alfred (Wedesbury)
Tinker, John Joseph
Windsor, Walter


Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithnear)
Townend, A. E.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Sitch, Charles H.
Viant, S. P.



Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Walsh, fit. Hon. Stphen
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Warne.


Smith, Rennle (Penistone)
Whiteley, W.



Stephen, Campbell
Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 163; Noes, 94.

Division No. 125.]
AYES.
[9.21 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Mnrchison. C. K.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Nelson, Sir Frank


Altnery, Irving James
Grotrian, H. Brent.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nuttall, Ellis


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Litton)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Hall, Capt. W. O'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Hammersley, S. S.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)


Baltour, George (Hampstead)
Harmon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pilcher, G.


Balniel, Lord
Hartington, Marquess of
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Radford, E. A.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Handlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Ralne, W.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Ramsden, E.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Rentoul, G. S.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Heneags, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Brass, captain W.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Brussey, Sir Leonard
Hennessy, Major J. B. G.
Roberta, Samuel (Hereford. Hereford)


Briscoe, Richard George
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Rye, F. G.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hills, Major John Waller
Salmon, Major I.


Brown-Lindsay, Major H.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marytebone)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brown, Brig. Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Holbrook, sir Arthur Richard
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Sandon, Lord


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Shaw, R. G (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Campbell, E. T.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Shepperson, E. W.


Cayzer, Ma). Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Hudson, R.S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Skelton, A. N.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hume, Sir G. H.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Huntingfield, Lord
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)


Chapman, sir S.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


dairy, Reginald George
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Smithers, Waldron


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jacob, A. E.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Couper, J, B.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lamb, j Q.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Crcokshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Loder, J. D. V.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Looker, Herbert William
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lougher, L.
Tasker, Mafor R. fnigo


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Tumpteton, W. P.


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Luce. Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somwset. Yeovil)
Macdonald. Capt. P. D. (1. of W.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Macintyre, I.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Dawson, Sir Philip
McLean, Major A.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Macmillan, Captain H.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McNeill, Right Hon. R.
Wells, S. R.


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Malone, Major P. B.
Williams, Com, C. (Devon, Torquay)


Everard, W. L.
Manningham-Bulter, Sir Mervyn
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Margesson, Captain D.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Gatile, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Merriman, F. B.
Wise, Sir Frodrie


Ganzonl, Sir John
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Gee, Captain R.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Gibus, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, w.)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. V.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Goff, Sir Park
Moreing, Captain A. H.



Grace, John
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Cl've
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Major Cope and Lord Stanley.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Batey, Joseph
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)


Amrnon, Charles George
Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Buchanan, G.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Bowarman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Cluse, W. S.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Broad, F. A.
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)


Barnes, A.
Bromfield, William
Compton, Joseph


Barr, J.
Bromley, J.
Connolly, M.


Cove, W. G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sitch, Charles H.


Dalton, Hugh.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Slesser. Sir Henry H.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, F. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Day, Colonel Harry.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Dennison, R.
Kennedy, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Duncan, C.
Kirkwood, O.
Sullivan, Joseph


Dunnico, H.
Lansbury, George
Taylor, R. A.


Gibbins, Joseph
Lawson, John James
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Gillett, George M.
Lee, F.
Thurtte, E.


Gosling, Harry
Lindley, F. W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Livingstone, A. M.
Townend, A. E.


Groves, T.
Lunn, William
Viant, S. P.


Grundy, T. W.
Mac Donald, Rt. Hon.J. R.(Aberavon)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvit)
Macklnder, W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hardle, George D.
MacLaren, Andrew
Whiteley, W.


Harris, Percy A.
Maxton, James
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Montagus, Frederick
Williams David (Swansea, E.)


Hayday, Arthur
Morris, R. H.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Hayes, John Henry
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Oliver, George Harold
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hirst, G. H.
Paling, W.
Windsor, Walter


Hirst, W. (Bradlord, South;
Potts, John S.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Saklatvala, Shapurji
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


John, William (Rhondda, Wnt)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Warne.


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday, 13th April.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Wednesday evening,Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERadjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Thirty-Two minutes after Nine o'Clock, a.m.